Log in

View Full Version : Help get women-hating a-hole off the air



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

bem401
03-04-2012, 02:06 PM
If this is strictly about the name calling, do the same rules apply to Bill Maher and the others who've been denigrating to Palin?

rickdugan
03-04-2012, 03:10 PM
If this is strictly about the name calling, do the same rules apply to Bill Maher and the others who've been denigrating to Palin?

Bem, that might be taking it a little too far into the political deep end. Palin held herself out there for public office and, as other politicians running for election usually do, was actively seeking media exposure. Fluke was just a lady who chose to testify at a Committee hearing.

Now I would have had no problem if Limbaugh and others just wanted to poke fun at her testimony. For example, her statement that contraception was costing female Georgetown students $1000 per year was rather amusing. Are condoms that much more expensive in CA than where I'm from? Shit, for that matter, you'd think that the guys who are sleeping with these gals could pick up some of the tab. LOL.

But taking nasty personal shots at a law student simply because she chose to give some rather dubious testimony in a Committee hearing was way over the top and just should not have happened.

tuesdaymarie
03-04-2012, 03:16 PM
^$1000 a year isn't crazy. With only catastrophe insurance, I was looking at paying $87/month for some birth controls. My friend who had good insurance (otherwise, at least) paid about the same.

Edit: I recently got better insurance which allows me to get generic birth control pills for $15/month. Before I changed insurances, my doctor recommended Yaz for my particular needs. Keep in mind, I was not sexually active at this time. I was on birth control for medical reasons for two years before I ever had sex. The generic I take now is not the best option nor does it help some of the issues that Yaz could, if I could afford it. However, being a full-time student and living on my own, $65/month is a lot more than $15/month. I live frugally and save my money whenever I can. The condom remark, even if meant as a joke, misses the issue: we take birth control pills for reasons other than just loving dick so much we can't afford all the rubbers we go through.

bem401
03-04-2012, 03:36 PM
Bem, that might be taking it a little too far into the political deep end. Palin held herself out there for public office and, as other politicians running for election usually do, was actively seeking media exposure. Fluke was just a lady who chose to testify at a Committee hearing.

But taking nasty personal shots at a law student simply because she chose to give some rather dubious testimony in a Committee hearing was way over the top and just should not have happened.

Word is she wasn't strictly a college student, but a social activist "planted" there by the Left. Why do you think Stephanopolous went down the contraception route when moderating a debate a couple months ago. Its a deception, a diversion from the real issue here and other issues they'd prefer to ignore.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/

shy1
03-04-2012, 03:47 PM
Where did the idea even come from that any of this involves condoms? Its about hormonal birth control, which costs the same regardless of how much sex you have. The idea that she was having so much sex that she couldn't afford contraception was introduced entirely by Rush and apparently fabricated out of thin air. And why the hell wouldn't men want women to have access to contraceptives of any sort? Do men really want to be risking 18 years of child support or a forced marriage every time they have sex? I'm baffled by all of this. The benefits of birth control seem so obvious to me that I had assumed that the country had moved beyond all of this.

shy1
03-04-2012, 03:53 PM
[QUOTE=rickdugan;2308736

But I also have to admit that I agree with the notion that I should not be forced to pay for anyone else's sex life, either through direct taxes or indirectly through government insurance mandates. And I include young girls, old guys and anyone else in the mix.
[/QUOTE]

I believe that it has already been stated, but the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy cost a lot more than than birth control.

bem401
03-04-2012, 03:54 PM
Where did the idea even come from that any of this involves condoms? Its about hormonal birth control, which costs the same regardless of how much sex you have. The idea that she was having so much sex that she couldn't afford contraception was introduced entirely by Rush and apparently fabricated out of thin air. And why the hell wouldn't men want women to have access to contraceptives of any sort? Do men really want to be risking 18 years of child support or a forced marriage every time they have sex? I'm baffled by all of this. The benefits of birth control seem so obvious to me that I had assumed that the country had moved beyond all of this.

You're wrong. The underlying issue here is whether or not the government can dictate to religious organizations that they must facilitate and fund things contrary to their religious teachings. No one is being denied anything they don't presently have but the government wants to make the religious organizations pay for it. Its an assault on the First Amendment in general and the Catholic Church specifically. The whole "reproductive rights" issue is just an attempt to change the focus.

shy1
03-04-2012, 03:57 PM
I agree that it is an attempt to change the focus, but I don't believe that my actual statement was wrong.

Kellydancer
03-04-2012, 03:59 PM
I don't know if she was a plant but there are differents rules for people in the media and therefore public figures then there are for regular people. If I call a celeb a name for instance she probably can't do much but if I call my neighbor a name he could sue for slander or libel. I can't remember the rules of this but I studied this in various journalism classes.

kandie_kitten
03-04-2012, 04:06 PM
Whoa. No one is DEMANDING FREE birth control. Where the fuck did you even get that? They're demanding that insurance companies be required to cover it. If you're going to be so vehemently against something at least no what the fuck you're talking about hmm??

No, free birth control is the battle. In August 2011, Obama passed the bill eliminating a copay for birth controls, requiring insurances to eat the cost. (see here http://news.yahoo.com/insurers-must-cover-birth-control-no-copays-140750830.html)

Since many religious institutions raised holy hell over it, Obama has introduced a compromise, which would allow religious institutions to bypass the "free" ruling.

(see the Young Democrats website for more information: http://www.yda.org/thanks-obama-for-free-birth-control

And here: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/213855-president-obama-expresses-support-for-georgetown-student-at-the-center-of-birth-control-contrversy)

Quote, "The White House initially took political heat over a contraception mandate, under which employers' insurers provide birth control to their employees without a co-pay, from critics who said it was a violation of religious liberty. Under pressure, Obama announced an “accommodation” meant to allow exceptions from the mandate for Catholic hospitals and other religiously affiliated groups."

Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School and the target of Limbaugh's attacks, is one of the people part of the protest of the religious institutions' exemption.

As said from Feminist.org, "Stand with Sandra and demand coverage of contraceptives without co-pays or deductibles for most women under the Affordable Care Act’s preventive care package. "

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1400/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9723

Last week, Senate voted down expanding the exemption; some religious institutions remain exempt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/birth-control-exemption-bill-the-blunt-amendment-killed-in-senate/2012/03/01/gIQA4tXjkR_story.html

"Only churches are fully exempted, although under an accommodation recently announced by the Obama administration, religiously affiliated organizations such as Catholic charities, schools, universities or hospitals can refuse to provide contraceptive coverage through their insurance plans for employees. In such cases, employers’ insurance companies must offer coverage to female employees directly, without charging additional premiums."

bem401
03-04-2012, 04:19 PM
I don't know if she was a plant but there are differents rules for people in the media and therefore public figures then there are for regular people. If I call a celeb a name for instance she probably can't do much but if I call my neighbor a name he could sue for slander or libel. I can't remember the rules of this but I studied this in various journalism classes.

I would only argue Kelly that she made herself a public figure by speaking "publicly" before Congress. She wasn't "attacked" out of the blue. She chose to take the national stage and make her position known.

Dirty Ernie
03-04-2012, 04:33 PM
The solution, especially for the 2 Catholic presidential candidates, would be to adopt the Pope's position on healthcare. It would remove the burden from the Church of having to pay for coverages that go against doctrine.


(snip)...In fact Pope Benedict joined WHO’s call for universal health coverage just before its report hit the press. He called health care a moral responsibility of government and an “inalienable right,” regardless of social and economic status or ability to pay. He cautioned that the privatization of health care should “not become a threat to the accessibility, availability, and quality of health care.”(snip)


http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/social-justice/2011/01/papal-prescription

Natalllia
03-04-2012, 04:34 PM
When I said that condoms aren't just for women, it was aimed at Lestat's comment about men getting free condoms.

Right - I hope I didn't come across like I was attacking you. I definitely didn't intend to attack you.

I was more just taking your point and running with it.

eagle2
03-04-2012, 04:49 PM
Now there is no doubt that Limbaugh was out of line with his comments about Fluke and people have a right to be outraged. But IMHO eagle posted this with an agenda. Knowing his general political leanings, his hatred of Limbaugh likely started long before Limbaugh made those stupid comments. Idk, but I suspect that the inflammatory title of this thread, along with eagle's somewhat exaggerated portrayal of what was actually said, were all carefully crafted to try to generate maximum participation in the petition.

Now again, count me in as one who thinks that Limbaugh went way out of bounds and that he didn't need to target this girl in order to make his points. He is also a windbag and I cannot stand listening to him even though I lean in the same general direction on some matters.

But I also have to admit that I agree with the notion that I should not be forced to pay for anyone else's sex life, either through direct taxes or indirectly through government insurance mandates. And I include young girls, old guys and anyone else in the mix.

And for those that believe that an insurance mandate is not the same thing as directly asking taxpayers to foot the bill, it actually has the same effect. Insurers are forced to raise premiums on all participants for each covered service, so if they must pay for BC/Viagra/etc. then the costs will be passed along to everyone in the form of higher premiums. Hey, now I'm all in favor of wonderful and fulfilling sex lives, just don't reach into my pocket so that some old guy to get an erection or so some girl can fuck her boyfriend bareback.

Anyway, just my :twocents:

I don't think very highly of Rush Limbaugh, but I've been here for more than five years, and this is the first time I can think of where I started a thread that is critical of him. I said what I can best remember of Rush's statement because I get so disgusted from reading or listening to what he said, that I did not want to go back and listen again. I'm sure if I quoted him word for word, the reaction from most people here would have been the same. I was very angry at the way he attacked this woman for doing nothing more than stating her views on the issue of insurance companies covering contraception. If Rush did nothing more than state he disagreed with her, and his reasons for doing so, I don't think anyone would have said a word to criticize him. Instead he chose to go after her personally, and call her a "slut" and a "prostitute", which is what got so many people angry.

It is debatable whether or not requiring insurance to cover contraception would result in higher insurance costs for everyone. Contraception cost is a lot lower than the cost of giving birth in a hospital, especially if there are complications. If providing contraception to women at no costs reduces the number of unplanned pregnancies enough, it could end up making insurance cost less. Almost half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

If a mandate requiring insurance to fully cover contraception were to significantly reduce this number, it could result in less cost for insurance companies.

Kellydancer
03-04-2012, 04:49 PM
I would only argue Kelly that she made herself a public figure by speaking "publicly" before Congress. She wasn't "attacked" out of the blue. She chose to take the national stage and make her position known.

You may be right on that and not sure how the rules apply in that case. I just know it's much harder to prove libel or slander against anyone in the public eye (and she may be considered that now)as compared to a nobody.

Kellydancer
03-04-2012, 05:02 PM
Now there is no doubt that Limbaugh was out of line with his comments about Fluke and people have a right to be outraged. But IMHO eagle posted this with an agenda. Knowing his general political leanings, his hatred of Limbaugh likely started long before Limbaugh made those stupid comments. Idk, but I suspect that the inflammatory title of this thread, along with eagle's somewhat exaggerated portrayal of what was actually said, were all carefully crafted to try to generate maximum participation in the petition.

Now again, count me in as one who thinks that Limbaugh went way out of bounds and that he didn't need to target this girl in order to make his points. He is also a windbag and I cannot stand listening to him even though I lean in the same general direction on some matters.

But I also have to admit that I agree with the notion that I should not be forced to pay for anyone else's sex life, either through direct taxes or indirectly through government insurance mandates. And I include young girls, old guys and anyone else in the mix.

And for those that believe that an insurance mandate is not the same thing as directly asking taxpayers to foot the bill, it actually has the same effect. Insurers are forced to raise premiums on all participants for each covered service, so if they must pay for BC/Viagra/etc. then the costs will be passed along to everyone in the form of higher premiums. Hey, now I'm all in favor of wonderful and fulfilling sex lives, just don't reach into my pocket so that some old guy to get an erection or so some girl can fuck her boyfriend bareback.

Anyway, just my :twocents:

You reminded me of something a family friend used to say. Back in my 20's I was VERY liberal, socialist really. I thought the Dems were too conservative and everything should be provided, etc. A family friend (who is a staunch republican)told me as I got older and working I would see this different. Now I do and see where she was coming from. I have to throw this out and wonder how many who are wanting free birth control actually pay taxes. I pay taxes and see them go up and up for choices. I don't care how people live as long as they don't expect me to support their choice.

rickdugan
03-04-2012, 05:14 PM
It is debatable whether or not requiring insurance to cover contraception would result in higher insurance costs for everyone. Contraception cost is a lot lower than the cost of giving birth in a hospital, especially if there are complications. If providing contraception to women at no costs reduces the number of unplanned pregnancies enough, it could end up making insurance cost less. Almost half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

If a mandate requiring insurance to fully cover contraception were to significantly reduce this number, it could result in less cost for insurance companies.

Most insurance companies are currently estimating that this will cost them, particularly since co-pays are not allowed. Large insurance companies have departments full of actuaries and demographers who make these estimates for a living, so I am inclined to believe them. Heck, the people who run these companies are not stupid and it is not a far stretch to believe that if they thought that providing cheap or free contraceptives would actually save them money, they already would have done so.

Blue Cross, one of the largest insurers in the country, has already estimated that the contraceptive requirements will cost them an additional $2.8 billion, which of course they have already stated will be passed along to their policy holders in the form of higher premiums.

bem401
03-04-2012, 05:21 PM
You reminded me of something a family friend used to say. Back in my 20's I was VERY liberal, socialist really. I thought the Dems were too conservative and everything should be provided, etc. A family friend (who is a staunch republican)told me as I got older and working I would see this different. Now I do and see where she was coming from. I have to throw this out and wonder how many who are wanting free birth control actually pay taxes. I pay taxes and see them go up and up for choices. I don't care how people live as long as they don't expect me to support their choice.

Hence my siggy (the second one).

bem401
03-04-2012, 05:28 PM
Most insurance companies are currently estimating that this will cost them, particularly since co-pays are not allowed. Large insurance companies have departments full of actuaries and demographers who make these estimates for a living, so I am inclined to believe them. Heck, the people who run these companies are not stupid and it is not a far stretch to believe that if they thought that providing cheap or free contraceptives would actually save them money, they already would have done so.

Blue Cross, one of the largest insurers in the country, has already estimated that the contraceptive requirements will cost them an additional $2.8 billion, which of course they have already stated will be passed along to their policy holders in the form of higher premiums.

Of course its going to cost more money. How can you provide more coverage with no co-pays to more people and save money?

And the real issue here is whether the government can coerce religious institutions to provide (or pay to provide) services antithetical to what they teach. The issue really has nothing to do with whether or not it will save money (name one thing the gov't does more efficiently than private industry) and it has nothing to do with the denial of anything already being provided.

eagle2
03-04-2012, 05:50 PM
Most insurance companies are currently estimating that this will cost them, particularly since co-pays are not allowed. Large insurance companies have departments full of actuaries and demographers who make these estimates for a living, so I am inclined to believe them. Heck, the people who run these companies are not stupid and it is not a far stretch to believe that if they thought that providing cheap or free contraceptives would actually save them money, they already would have done so.

Blue Cross, one of the largest insurers in the country, has already estimated that the contraceptive requirements will cost them an additional $2.8 billion, which of course they have already stated will be passed along to their policy holders in the form of higher premiums.

In 1998 the federal government mandated that insurers of federal government employees offer full coverage for all FDA approved contraceptives, and there was no increase in premiums.

Kellydancer
03-04-2012, 05:55 PM
Hence my siggy (the second one).

I saw that on another board and thought of you. Were you liberal too in your 20's? Awhile back I found posts I made on another board back in the 90's and you wouldn't believe how liberal I was. I am not going to post some of my comments here because some are quite nasty to anyone conservative in thought but I now espuse many of those ideas. An ex of mine back in my 20's used to tell me I would become more conservative later on because he did and I thought he was lying.

bem401
03-04-2012, 06:01 PM
In 1998 the federal government mandated that insurers of federal government employees offer full coverage for all FDA approved contraceptives, and there was no increase in premiums.

First, this is about the constitutionality of mandating that religious organizations be forced to provide or fund for things they don't condone.

Secondly, do you have facts to support that coverage was expanded with expanding costs? That's a rather non-specific statement you made.

bem401
03-04-2012, 06:11 PM
I saw that on another board and thought of you. Were you liberal too in your 20's? Awhile back I found posts I made on another board back in the 90's and you wouldn't believe how liberal I was. I am not going to post some of my comments here because some are quite nasty to anyone conservative in thought but I now espuse many of those ideas. An ex of mine back in my 20's used to tell me I would become more conservative later on because he did and I thought he was lying.

I don't know if I'd say liberal, but I did grow up in RI, a state that is overwhelmingly left-leaning, the son of 2 union members. Once I got to college, perhaps one of the most liberal universities in the country, I started examining the issues and listening to Ronald Reagan and becoming more conservative. I don't agree with everything they advocate. I oppose the death penalty (let them rot in prison) and I think drugs could be legalized because its a war that's been lost.

Kellydancer
03-04-2012, 06:14 PM
I too oppose the death penalty and support the war on drugs. People often think I am a Republican but I despise both parties and am still a registered Democrat. I would say I am probably Libertarian more than anything. I did vote Obama, not sure who will get my vote this year.

eagle2
03-04-2012, 06:14 PM
First, this is about the constitutionality of mandating that religious organizations be forced to provide or fund for things they don't condone.

This thread is actually about Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut and a prostitute in response to her testimony on contraception coverage. I think a discussion on the constitutionality of the mandate would be breaking the ban on political topics.



Secondly, do you have facts to support that coverage was expanded with expanding costs? That's a rather non-specific statement you made.

From:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml

In 1999, Congress required the health plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program to cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods. The FEHB program is the largest employer-sponsored health benefits program in the United States, and at the time, it covered approximately 9 million Federal Employees, retirees and their family members and included approximately 300 health plans. The premiums for 1999 had already been set when the legislation passed, so the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which administers the FEHB program, provided for a reconciliation process. However, there was no need to adjust premium levels because there was no cost increase as a result of providing coverage of contraceptive services.

bem401
03-04-2012, 06:29 PM
I too oppose the death penalty and support the war on drugs. People often think I am a Republican but I despise both parties and am still a registered Democrat. I would say I am probably Libertarian more than anything. I did vote Obama, not sure who will get my vote this year.

Don't get me wrong, I oppose drug use but its not being fought effectively. And to some extent, I think the fact it is illegal is part of its allure. As a Rhode Islander, I have to vote in Democratic primaries because that's where the real election seems to take place. I voted against Obama twice in 2008, once in the primary and again in the election. The Libertarian Party? They like Ron Paul and his foreign policy ideas are ludicrous.

bem401
03-04-2012, 06:37 PM
This thread is actually about Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut and a prostitute in response to her testimony on contraception coverage. I think a discussion on the constitutionality of the mandate would be breaking the ban on political topics.



From:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml

In 1999, Congress required the health plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program to cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods. The FEHB program is the largest employer-sponsored health benefits program in the United States, and at the time, it covered approximately 9 million Federal Employees, retirees and their family members and included approximately 300 health plans. The premiums for 1999 had already been set when the legislation passed, so the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which administers the FEHB program, provided for a reconciliation process. However, there was no need to adjust premium levels because there was no cost increase as a result of providing coverage of contraceptive services.

I agree that Limbaugh crossed the line. So did he. The only reason this is even a topic worthy of discussion is because it is ultimately about a First Amendment violation. Nowhere but here have I seen this presented as a cost-cutting measure (or even a wash). The problem is it a power grab at the cost of religious freedom contrary to one of the reasons this country was founded in the first place.

Kellydancer
03-04-2012, 06:47 PM
Don't get me wrong, I oppose drug use but its not being fought effectively. And to some extent, I think the fact it is illegal is part of its allure. As a Rhode Islander, I have to vote in Democratic primaries because that's where the real election seems to take place. I voted against Obama twice in 2008, once in the primary and again in the election. The Libertarian Party? They like Ron Paul and his foreign policy ideas are ludicrous.

I like some of his ideas but yes others are bizarre. Interesting comment about drug use because I know someone else who told me something like that. I don't like drugs, don't do them but don't get why they are illegal when alcohol (which causes more damage)is not. I don't like any of the candidates in the presidential election so will likely vote independent of some sort. I will be voting in the upcoming Democratic primary in Illinois because a moderate woman Democrat who I have met and like is running against a far left corrupt race baiter politician who only got into power because his far left race baiter father has a name.

bem401
03-04-2012, 06:59 PM
I'll assume that's Jesse Jackson Jr you are referring to in the Congressional race. Presidentially, starting with Bush 41, I always found myself voting against one candidate, rather than for the other one. I also think the reason most people avoid drugs has very little to do with the fact that they are illegal. More of my students over the years have been involved in drugs than were involved in alcohol (even though that was illegal for them as well).

rickdugan
03-04-2012, 07:05 PM
In 1998 the federal government mandated that insurers of federal government employees offer full coverage for all FDA approved contraceptives, and there was no increase in premiums.

I read that from the White House press release too. It looks great on paper, but it is apples and oranges.

First, the FEHB plan is the nation's largest insurance plan with enormous negotiating power. As a side note to that, which insurance company do you think was getting in line to jack up rates on employees of the IRS, HHS, FBI, SEC, etc.? Conversely, individuals and most employers are in a far worse negotiating position for obvious reasons.

Second, most of the plans in the FEHB at that time were HMOs that were already providing fairly comprehensive contraceptive coverage, so it was not exactly a budget buster for them simply to drop copays, which were not very high to begin with back in 1998. Co-pays are a lot higher now and not only will their loss have an impact, but they also served as a deterrent for excessive use and irresponsible behavior which will now be gone.

Third, unlike even the historical FEHB plans, there are many plans offered in the real world that do NOT include comprehensive coverage of all FDA approved contraceptives. Some do not cover them at all and others carefully manage which options are offered through their plans. Guess what is going to happen to the premiums of these plans?

Again, there is a reason why many health insurers are convinced that their costs are going to go up. When you make something free, folks tend to line up at the door for it, even those that otherwise didn't need it or want it that badly.

rickdugan
03-04-2012, 07:31 PM
Where did the idea even come from that any of this involves condoms? Its about hormonal birth control, which costs the same regardless of how much sex you have.

This actually arose from the vagueness of Fluke's testimony, where she simply indicated that the cost of "contraception" was $3000 for a law student in a 3-year program. That baffled many people as there are a variety of contraception methods, including condoms, that are far cheaper than $1000 per year. This, in turn, led to the condom jokes.


And why the hell wouldn't men want women to have access to contraceptives of any sort?

Hey, I'm all for women having full access to contraceptives. My only issue is being forced to pay for it out of my pocket. Putting aside the White House's claims that insurance costs are not going to go up to cover this new mandate, insurers themselves are saying otherwise - or at least those not too afraid to speak up at all - and I believe them.

Now true medical need is a definite exception in my book, but otherwise why do I need to pay for Jill to let Joey go into her bareback? As far as I'm concerned, they can spring for some condoms and have all of the worry free fun that they want. And as I said before, my objection to this extends to subsidizing purchases of Viagra or anything else relating to recreational sex.

slowpoke
03-04-2012, 08:27 PM
Free condoms everywhere would be awesome! I would appreciate that a lot more than the candy bowl that our receptionist keeps on her desk. Plus, condoms aren't just for men.

Better yet, Free Cigars!

Dddallas
03-04-2012, 08:57 PM
Freedom of speech. Sorry I went to school.

Kellydancer
03-04-2012, 09:23 PM
I'll assume that's Jesse Jackson Jr you are referring to in the Congressional race. Presidentially, starting with Bush 41, I always found myself voting against one candidate, rather than for the other one. I also think the reason most people avoid drugs has very little to do with the fact that they are illegal. More of my students over the years have been involved in drugs than were involved in alcohol (even though that was illegal for them as well).

Yep Jackson. What this criminal did is redistrict my district so it falls into his area. The reason? there is an airport he wants to build here so he can get his cronies jobs. This district was Republican and dislikes Dems. For those who don't know he is accused also of being involved with former governor Blagojevich's corruption and was allegedly paying people to get the senator seat left vacant by Obama.

I think people avoid drus because they don't want the addictions. For me personally I avoid anything that changes my biology.

Swagz
03-04-2012, 09:48 PM
I just wanted to chime in and say that regardless of how I feel about the issue, I totally understand why people would disagree with making insurance companies cover birth control. From an economic standpoint, it makes sense. It also makes sense that some people think it's silly and unfair to expect a religious institution to fund something that goes against the foundational doctrine.

But: it's scary when people disagree with this issue from Rush Limbaugh's perspective. I don't even mind his creepy and simplistic prostitution analogy as much as I mind his calling her a slut and demanding, even "jokingly," access to her sex life. (Because, after all, she is a slut.) Women's bodies should simply not be up for uninvited public sexualization. Any assumptions about her sex life, true or false, should have no bearing on his evaluation of her opinion. To take it further: no one, female or male, should be subject to blatant verbal abuse, sexual or not, in what should be a progressive setting with the purpose of exchanging ideas.

I really don't want to take it there, but does anyone remember Don Imus and the nappy headed hos? It's the same idea; remnants of institutionalized domestic slavery are peeking into the present of a society that has the capacity to be better than that.

Krill_
03-04-2012, 10:32 PM
Co-pays are a lot higher now and not only will their loss have an impact, but they also served as a deterrent for excessive use and irresponsible behavior which will now be gone.

The notion of using "too much" birth control, or irresponsibly using birth control certainly is interesting to say the least, if that's what you're implying here. Maybe I fell off the wagon somewhere, but I thought using birth control was responsible behavior? Doesn't birth control save money in the big picture? Or maybe if everyone has free birth control, suddenly far more people will become sexually active? This logic is difficult to follow.

I also find the "I don't want to pay for other people's activities" (in this case sex) argument extremely weak in the context of how insurance works. Maybe I don't want to pay for someone's $60,000 triple bypass heart surgery because they chose a lifestyle of poor diet and exercise. What's that Christian saying about let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Perhaps here it should be let he (or she) who has done everything humanly possible to not consume health insurance resources make decisions about about how other consume their insurance. And surely, the overweight, cigar smoking, drug addict Rush Limbaugh will be the first to sign up for that.

eagle2
03-05-2012, 12:04 AM
A 7th advertiser pulls out of Limbaugh's show

http://news.yahoo.com/7th-advertiser-pulls-limbaughs-show-194641280.html

bem401
03-05-2012, 06:58 AM
A 7th advertiser pulls out of Limbaugh's show

http://news.yahoo.com/7th-advertiser-pulls-limbaughs-show-194641280.html

A suspension (their word) is not the same as a termination. It's a PR stunt to placate the whiners till the uproar subsides. Check back in a month or 2.

TarsTone
03-05-2012, 09:26 AM
It really speaks volumes about the insufferable self-righteousness of the left and their shameless tactics that even when I agree with them, I still feel repulsed by them!

I actually support the contraception coverage from a purely practical point of view. In a perfect world, people who can't afford birth control would try to limit their sexual activity. But in reality, many of them, perhaps even the majority, would say fuck it and keep banging away. As someone else pointed out, birth control pills cost the tax-payer a lot less than welfare for single moms.

But for Democrats to suggest that opposing this is tantamount to a "war on women" is such a brazen attempt at demagoguery I almost hope they lose on this issue. The term is at best clueless, if not outright deceitful. If something like this qualifies as "war" against a gender, then we'll sure as fuck need to invent a new word to describe mandatory Hijab, female circumcision or stoning of adulterous women(!) that go on as we speak in other parts of the world.

Moreover, calling this a war against women conveniently ignores that many women actually oppose the coverage too.

I honestly wonder if the left will ever understand how off-putting and dishonest their rhetoric sounds to independents like me who actually agree with them on several issues and can be persuaded to vote for them. I doubt they'll ever get a clue.

Natalllia
03-05-2012, 10:39 AM
^^^This thread is not here to suggest that opposing contraception coverage is tantamount to a "war on women".

It is about one man, an entertainer with his own radio show, who found it acceptable to insult one woman by using derogatory and misogynistic slurs and suggesting that he has the right to objectify her not just verbally, but by demanding that she post videos of herself having sex on the internet for his enjoyment. Even jokingly, that sort of personal attack and sense of entitlement over women's bodies is repulsive and unacceptable.

If you remove the political context in which he made these comments, I find it hard to believe that anyone would deem this use of hurtful language in an attack against a young woman he doesn't even know as appropriate. There is no context in which it is okay to speak to or about a woman in that way.

Swagz
03-05-2012, 11:02 AM
^ It's not like he was at a bar with his buddies, off-air, spouting his own personal bullshit when a journalist recorded him and blew up publicly what was intended to be private. Instead, he said it on-air, obviously expecting to pander to some demographic by demeaning her publicly in a classically chauvinist way. That means a) he thinks this is OK to do and b) he or his show producers may reasonably expect the belief to be espoused by enough viewers that this is OK to do on his show. It underlines a social problem, and it's just really rude and lame.

Again, I don't give a single shit what he talks about in his private time, especially since he doesn't hold public office. But where a political official has the power to influence laws, someone like Limbaugh has the power to influence opinion, or at least to normalize damaging ones.


Edit: I looked up "war on women" and found a bunch of results. I agree it's definitely a sensationalist catchphrase, but here's an article that sort of lumps all the different incidents together, and you might be able to at least agree that there's a bit of an issue http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/05/republican-party-declares-war-on-women?newsfeed=true

Kellydancer
03-05-2012, 11:21 AM
It really speaks volumes about the insufferable self-righteousness of the left and their shameless tactics that even when I agree with them, I still feel repulsed by them!

I actually support the contraception coverage from a purely practical point of view. In a perfect world, people who can't afford birth control would try to limit their sexual activity. But in reality, many of them, perhaps even the majority, would say fuck it and keep banging away. As someone else pointed out, birth control pills cost the tax-payer a lot less than welfare for single moms.

But for Democrats to suggest that opposing this is tantamount to a "war on women" is such a brazen attempt at demagoguery I almost hope they lose on this issue. The term is at best clueless, if not outright deceitful. If something like this qualifies as "war" against a gender, then we'll sure as fuck need to invent a new word to describe mandatory Hijab, female circumcision or stoning of adulterous women(!) that go on as we speak in other parts of the world.

Moreover, calling this a war against women conveniently ignores that many women actually oppose the coverage too.

I honestly wonder if the left will ever understand how off-putting and dishonest their rhetoric sounds to independents like me who actually agree with them on several issues and can be persuaded to vote for them. I doubt they'll ever get a clue.

I don't know how you feel but I am so tired of this "war on women" crap being spouted by the left. Yes there truly is a war on women to some extent, such as sexism in the workforce. But some of the other topics are just a way to ask for more money for their agenda, such as a petition going out to allow illegals mothers and their children free welfare because otherwise it's a war on women. Nope it's a war on my tax dollars.

TarsTone
03-05-2012, 12:26 PM
It is about one man, an entertainer with his own radio show, who found it acceptable to insult one woman...I found Rush's comment stupid and sensationalist like almost everything else he says. His entire gimmick is that of an egotistical blowhard. But as you said yourself, he insulted ONE woman. And unless we're to believe all women belong in a monolithic class devoid of individuality where making insinuations against one is automatically an affront to the whole group, the idea that this makes him a "woman hater" is just plain silly.

I don't believe in religion. If I call ONE christian a bible-thumper does that make me a christian hater? What if I call ONE southerner a Redneck....Am I now hateful against the South? What if I did all this as a radio host...should I lose my job, freedom of speech be damned?


If you remove the political context in which he made these comments, I find it hard to believe that anyone would deem this use of hurtful language in an attack against a young woman he doesn't even know as appropriate. There is no context in which it is okay to speak to or about a woman in that way.As inappropriate and insulting as it may be, there is also the concept of freedom of speech. This freedom is not there just to protect speech we like. Nice, socially acceptable speech doesn't need protection because it's not likely to be silenced. It's exactly the kind of comments we don't like that the first amendment is supposed to protect.

If you consider someone's words to be repulsive and distasteful, your choice is to refute their remarks and/or not listen to them again. But you can't organize a campaign to take away people's livelihood on these grounds and still pretend to respect freedom of expression. And whether or not the person said this on a radio show or in his own living room is completely irrelevant. Freedom of speech applies to all forms of it, private or public. You either respect this freedom or you don't. Otherwise, you have no room to complain if the Christian right pulls the same tactics on a liberal pundit who calls some Christian backward or stupid.

Swagz
03-05-2012, 12:29 PM
^ Would he have used the same terminology if it had been a male student asking the same question? (Maybe on behalf of his girlfriend/sister/general concern) We can't know for sure, but I'm betting he would not.

But then again, I think your term "egotistical blowhard" pretty much sums it all up

TarsTone
03-05-2012, 12:43 PM
^ Would he have used the same terminology if it had been a male student asking the same question? (Maybe on behalf of his girlfriend/sister/general concern) We can't know for sure, but I'm betting he would not.As far as his freedom of speech is concerned, that makes no difference.

Dirty Ernie
03-05-2012, 12:49 PM
So I have to respect his freedom of expression, but must mute mine because it may cost him his job? Fat chance. If his sponsors act on my outrage that's not my problem. And his apology just demonstrates his wallet means more to him than his ideas.

TarsTone
03-05-2012, 01:04 PM
So I have to respect his freedom of expression, but must mute mine because it may cost him his job? Putting pressure on businesses with the ultimate aim of taking people's jobs away is not exercising your freedom of speech - it's suppressing someone else's, no matter how much you try to spin it to remain on your moral high horse.

And if you think your holy outrage!! gives you the right to silence others, don't bitch and moan and call them "hypersensitive" when they turn the tables on you. If Rush's comment is enough to make him a woman hater, then many liberal pundits are "christian haters" and deserve to be targeted with similar petitions.

Dirty Ernie
03-05-2012, 01:11 PM
He is free to espouse his ideas in the public square like the rest of us. The Constitution doesn't guarantee him a paycheck for doing so.

rickdugan
03-05-2012, 01:14 PM
But as you said yourself, he insulted ONE woman. And unless we're to believe all women belong in a monolithic class devoid of individuality where making insinuations against one is automatically an affront to the whole group, the idea that this makes him a "woman hater" is just plain silly..

Sorry Tars, but there is a bit of sophistry to that. He insulted her because of her situation and stated beliefs. Since there are a number of women who are in a similar position and hold similar beliefs, logic dictates that the insults would apply equally to them as well.

Now I am as big a believer in free speech as anyone, and I even share many of his political views, but even I believe that he went way too far.


...But you can't organize a campaign to take away people's livelihood on these grounds and still pretend to respect freedom of expression. And whether or not the person said this on a radio show or in his own living room is completely irrelevant. Freedom of speech applies to all forms of it, private or public. You either respect this freedom or you don't. Otherwise, you have no room to complain if the Christian right pulls the same tactics on a liberal pundit who calls some Christian backward or stupid.

Sure they can. Free speech is a two-way street and if folks are outraged enough over something that is said that they wish to vent their displeasure, then they certainly have the right to do so. There is a difference between free speech and speech without consequences. For the most part we have a right to say whatever we want, but that doesn't mean that others do not have a right to respond if they do not like what they hear.

Now I honestly believe that this will all blow over as he simply has too large and loyal a following for most radio stations to easily replace his program, and I am no fan of people trying to shut down a public voice through pressure on advertisers, but he gave them plenty of ammunition when he made those comments.

Kellydancer
03-05-2012, 01:23 PM
Putting pressure on businesses with the ultimate aim of taking people's jobs away is not exercising your freedom of speech - it's suppressing someone else's, no matter how much you try to spin it to remain on your moral high horse.

And if you think your holy outrage!! gives you the right to silence others, don't bitch and moan and call them "hypersensitive" when they turn the tables on you. If Rush's comment is enough to make him a woman hater, then many liberal pundits are "christian haters" and deserve to be targeted with similar petitions.

I despise Rush Limbaugh but some of the attacks I've seen by liberal commentators against conservatives, such as Christians are bad too. I do think Limbaugh is a woman hater for sure, but I also think many pundits are haters as well and yes I think there are even liberal commentators who hate women too. I remember all the comments against Hillary Clinton from the liberal commentators and it made me sick.

I don't know how I feel about him losing his job because I don't listen to him. I think he's despicable and we don't share many same views.