My current job leaves me little time to remain abreast of all that is going on in the world. Just this past week I put in a bit over an hour shy of 70 hours. Add almost seven hours of total commute time, and sleep is about all I do during the week and too much of the weekend when not working. I skim the newspaper, check emails, read a few blogs leaving an occasional comment and curse my inability to watch every Bulls game.
So this Rush Limbaugh controversy was unknown to me. As I typically start my shift at 7PM, I don't ever hear his show these days, since it's long over when I wake up. But Parkie was kind enough to draw my attention to it.
Now, it should be known that I was already aware of Sandra Fluke's testimony, as I had read of it Wintery Knight's fine blog, which also gave a bit more background regarding Fluke.
I must admit, that after reading WK's piece, and watching the attendant video, that I had similar thoughts regarding her and students like her. That is to say, I was not impressed with their character. It's not so much that they are promiscuous, and yes, unmarried sexual behavior is sexual promiscuity, but that they now wish for their shamefulness to be subsidized.
Frankly, there are so many problems with this controversy and the arguments put up by Fluke that it is hard to know where to begin. So I'll dive in in no particular order.
1. Why are students having sex? The purpose of a university education does not include providing opportunity to indulge in that which one is not prepared to handle. And at such an institution as Georgetown, it seems most out of line. Fluke tried to make a lame point regarding the obvious fact that one attending a faith based institution should know of the expectations of that institution. She made some noise about such a place living its own creed by thinking of the student's entire well being, which I guess to her includes their possible indulgence in bad behavior. She apparently feels students, due to their legal ages, have a right to sex. This is not true.
2. Fluke makes the point regarding married students burdened by the cost of contraception. Boo-hoo. What is important here? Having sex or getting the sheepskin? Sacrificing to gain success in any endeavor is not a matter of picking and choosing what should be sacrificed, and then, deciding what one won't sacrifice, gain subsidies to cover the costs involved. It should be noted that there are cost efficient means of contraception, such as denying one's self for the purpose of not interfering with the achievement of the goals sought, as well as lowering the chances of pregnancy by employment of the rhythm method. I don't know what it costs to stock up on rubbers, but to have some on hand for those married couples who can only hold out so long can't be that much.
3. Ovarian cysts. The pill is not the only means of preventing and treating ovarian cysts. Fluke tried this argument as well, and while there is likely ways to have this dealt with on the side, such as possibly a rider on one's policy (just guessing here as I am not an insurance expert) that can be funded by the student or her family and not the institution, it is really just another case of using the rare exception to provide for all the more selfish, self-gratifying goals of achieving the goal of forcing the institution to cover this totally elective behavior. (That is, it is much like the argument for abortion by constantly referring to the few cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother, and then demanding that it be allowed for any reason whatsoever.) Proper nutrition and exercise can go a long way toward preventing this totally preventable situation.
And really, the case she cited is an incredibly cheap one. If the girl in question is a lesbian as Fluke says, then why go on with the whining about having a child? This goes further into the issue of forcing an institution to fund something that totally conflicts with its ideology and religious beliefs. First, the lesbianism, and then, a lesbian getting pregnant to provide a child for her and a grandchild for her parents. Sorry, but this is totally forcing a religious institution to act against its beliefs and is not constitutional.
4. Contraception as health care. Huh? How so? The purpose of health insurance, at least when it was invented, was to provide a means of pooling funds of a large population of premium payers so that the smaller percentage of that population that experiences a catastrophic illness or injury won't be wiped out financially. It is not meant to handle the expense of hangnail level injuries, common cold level of illness and definitely not the consequences of morally questionable lifestyles.
Talk about moral decline! First we have people preaching free love and now it is considered so necessary to sustain life that we must subsidize it by covering contraception?
5. Regardless of Fluke's attempts to muddy the waters with tales of married students' financial burdens and lesbians with cysts (I know. It's ain't just lesbians. Don't waste my time.), Rush's comments aren't inaccurate even if a bit crude. Unmarried women who engage in sex ARE sluts (I know. So are men. Don't waste my time.) Though the word has slightly alternative meanings, it has come to be commonly known as a woman who is promiscuous and that term fits any who have sex outside of marriage.
So as I said, there is so much wrong here. I could go even further and speak of sponsors who have left Rush's show or are considering it. From what I've been able to read in this short time, these sponsors left more out of pressure than a personal belief that Rush went too far. I'm not about to investigate each one, but I do feel compelled to apply opposite pressure with letters of my own. I would threaten to never patronize their business, and encourage others to ignore them as well, for their cowardice of caving to the wailings of morally corrupt people. This flies in the face of Parkie insisting that no one takes Rush seriously anymore. Apparently they do if they would allow a few sluts to threaten them if they continue to advertize during Rush's show.
Parkie often accuses me of "crying" about things posted here and there. THIS is "crying". A bunch of liberal jackwagons (H/T R. Lee Ermey) crying over Rush calling a loose woman a slut. To the Parkster, it is far worse to be called by the word attached to a behavior than to engage in the behavior known by the word used to describe it.
UPDATE...ALREADY!!!
It seems that Rush has apologized. Notice that he didn't say "if I offended anyone". He acknowledges the offense of his words and just straightforwardly apologizes. Libs take note how it's done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
No, he said he used a poor choice of words.
In other words he should have said "hussy", "wanton woman", or "lady of the evening".
Ah, the Sex Nazis! "No sex for you!"
From Rush's ass to your lips.
Rush's comments aren't inaccurate even if a bit crude.
Really? He appears to think that birth control pills, like his Viagra, are taken each time a woman has sex.
No, Jim. He apologized directly for his poor choice of words. This implies that his opinion is NOT changes nor something for which is apologizing. In other words, he could have simply said only the part about her wanting us to subsidize her sex life, which is true. Yet, calling her a slut is not untrue, only harsh. If she is demanding contraceptives be covered by the rest of the premium paying public, she is demanding coverage for that which is only approved by morally corrupt people.
You like to view this as a sex Nazi thing. This less than clever and totally inaccurate position does not speak well for your sense of reality. You claim to be a Christian (or at least someone who attends a Christian church). If this is true, then you must regard God/Jesus, St. Paul and other epistle writers as sex nazis as well, since they all advocate chastity outside of marriage.
"Really? He appears to think that birth control pills, like his Viagra, are taken each time a woman has sex."
Only to you. I'm sure he's well aware of who takes the Pill and with what frequency, since it's no secret: Women wishing to engage in sex without getting pregnant.
However, I do want to address one stupid comparison libs make on this issue. Comparing Viagra type products with contraceptives. No contraceptive is absolutely necessary as long as chastity and the rhythm method can be employed. That is, if one does not want children, they do not have to engage in sex at all and the result will be no children. No subsidizing is required. No insurance coverage is required.
But the inability to perform normally is a medically correctable condition and is a justification for coverage.
Thus, comparing Viagra-type products with contraceptives, or worse, with abortion, is apples and oranges. It is far more comparable to infertility treatments. But then, it doesn't help the lib argument as well.
wanting us to subsidize her sex life, which is true.
It's a private school. How are you subsidizing anything about her?
What if I don't want to subsidize treatment for sports injuries at public colleges? Why can't I object to those "activities"?
What if Ms Fluke were married? Would she still be a slut? What about married students? Are they sluts? Or should they not participate in those "activities"?
But the inability to perform normally is a medically correctable condition and is a justification for coverage.
The ability to become pregnant through intercourse is also a medically correctable condition and is justification for coverage.
There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to get it up. I'll hazard a guess that Viagra patients are not in the market for creating children. Case in point: Rush Limbaugh, famous Viagra patient, four wives, no children.
What is the male equivalent of a slut?
"It's a private school. How are you subsidizing anything about her?"
I used the expression as one who could be a customer of the same insurance company used by the school, or as another parent or student who pays tuition and/or as a citizen who is affected by the unConstitutional notion of forcing any company to offer what it doesn't wish to offer, particularly against the religious beliefs of that company.
"What if I don't want to subsidize treatment for sports injuries at public colleges? Why can't I object to those "activities"?"
Then you'd be out of luck trying to argue this apples/oranges example. If the school runs athletic programs, then such coverage is justified. Does Georgetown have orgy programs?
"What if Ms Fluke were married? Would she still be a slut?"
You don't peruse anything, do you? I addressed this already. If a married couple attending school is short on cash, then they are obliged to abstain from sex if pregnancy would be a problem with continuing their education. OR, they can chance the rhythm method. Sex is not like eating and is not something one needs to be doing. The need for contraception implies sex for recreation. So why not demand coverage for every form of recreation for which a student must pay?
"The ability to become pregnant through intercourse is also a medically correctable condition and is justification for coverage."
Wow! This is really stupid! Being pregnant is not a malady, illness, injury or deformity. And now you're not talking about contraception anymore. Whereas you're looking to have their whoring about subsidized, you're now looking to also cover the consequences of that whoring about. You're not really a Christian at all, are you Jimmy-boy? This is just like Obama as you obviously consider pregnancy a punishment. What a twisted sense of morality you people have!
"There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to get it up."
More stupidity. Who said there was? The constitutional aspect of this issue is in whether the gov't can force a religious institution to act against it's beliefs.
But I've been speaking on the legitimacy of covering contraceptives as if it is a health issue. Erectile dysfunction is a health issue. Sex within a marriage is justified and whether or not children are the goal is not something over which you are in any position to be concerned. How do you know that Rush has not tried to have children? Your "guess" is an accusation regarding something over which you couldn't possibly have any personal knowledge. And by the way, do you know with certainty that Rush is lobbying for his Viagra to be covered by his insurance provider?
So you are trying to compare the behavior of a married man with his wife (regardless of how many wives he's had, they were each his wife), with a student who, as far as I know, is not married. Rush might have been a slut in between his marriages with his wives, but if Fluke isn't married and wants her contraceptives covered, she's a slut now.
Trying to ignore Marshall’s misogynist stance (Viagra is a good, regulative hormone treatment is bad even though it decreased risk of iron deficiency, anemia, common in women, reduces risk of ovarian cysts, symptomatic endometriosis, protects against pelvic inflammation, improves fibrocystic breast - something you’d think Rush would be aware of - prevents ectopic pregnancies, etc), let’s look at this from the point of view of American law, much less employer self-interest in keeping healthy employees and, thereby, productivity, which is the economic benefit of offering health benefits to their workforce:
Employers should not be legally excluding options that are generally accepted medical choices for employees taking care of themselves. If the issue is one of faith, then the tenets of one group should not be coercively applied to employees of para-faith institutions governed by that one group. This is not fair employment or fair practice.
And, in fact, Archbishop, now Timothy Cardinal Dolan of NY and President of the the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has been the religious head of countless Catholic hospitals and universities that have operated for a decade under state legislation more stringent than the Administration’s current proposal. So, too, have Catholic institutions in California and eight other states. While they lobbied against such legislation, they have provided health care in which all the normal, medical choices were available to their employees. The Catholic church was quite content to preach and teach their framework of morals and not impose them.
Now, though, that the President desires to enshrine protections for women’s access to healthy choices - they still have a choice and can exercise their faith, mind you - the Bishops (unsupported by the behavior of Catholic women, 80% of whom in their child-bearing years do use contraceptives as part of family planning) are “outraged.”
It has the strongest appearance of hypocrisy.
There's no misogyny here, feo. Only a care about gov't interference in private enterprise. For all the maladies you list, the Pill and hormone adjustment is NOT the best choice, nor even necessary. It is using harmful options in hopes of doing less harm than good. Sorta like chemo.
What is at stake here is whether or not the federal gov't has the right or constitutional duty to force private companies and religious institutions to provide what they'd rather not. What's more, this is far less an issue of providing questionable drugs for people with medical issues than it is to subsidize someone's (in this case a college kid) sex life. So who are you kidding?
No one's "access" is impeded by the lack of such coverage. Only their ability to pay for it, which is not the responsibility of any employer or religious institution. Indeed, no employer or institution needs to be providing ANY insurance coverage, and no one has the right to demand that they do. The only issue of "fairness" is whether or not it is fair to expect an employer or group to make such provisions on any other basis but their own beliefs and willingness to do so. And as the lack of sex is not life or health threatening, coverage for contraception is not an issue over which any employer or group need concern themselves as regards health insurance coverage.
And there is nothing "coercive" in NOT providing such and thereby enabling what the institution regards as bad behavior, if the product is still available and accessible by other means.
They are basically saying, "We don't believe that behavior is in line with our beliefs so we won't do anything that encourages or enables it. What you do on your own time is between you and your god." This is a far more proper understanding of separation of church and state, not to mention a matter of personal liberty unfettered by gov't interference.
On the other side, what is being said by this non-issue is "I can't control my own sexual urges so I need other people to provide me with the means to prevent and abort pregnancies that the act in wish I insist I need to engage is designed to bring about."
This is no more than another case of morally corrupted people abdicating their own responsibilities for controlling their actions or morally dealing with the consequences of those actions. But hey! You go ahead and donate to that cause if you like. Supporting immoral behavior is right up your alley.
Oh.. Marshall.. you really stepped in it this time. It seems like you:
1) Didnt read or listen to what Ms. Fluke actually said.
and..
2) Dont understand why women us birth control.
Of course, the rest of your statements prove:
1) How far to the right you are on social issues.
2) That you are an apologist for anything right-wing.
3) How out of touch you are with contemporary life.
I'm really getting tired of all the claims about other uses of contraceptives; those other uses are not the issue, are not what the law is requiring, has nothing to do with the context of the argument. The issue is ONLY contraception. So quit bringing in all those red herrings.
NOW, why is it the only mandated contraception coverage is for women? What about men who buy condoms - why shouldn't the insurance be mandated to cover them also? Because it isn't really about contraception - it is about women wanting to have unfettered, irresponsible sex without consequences and without bearing the cost themselves, even if it IS only $9 a month for pills at Wal-Mart! It is about sanctioning such behavior and promoting it and financing it so as to eventually MANDATE coverage for abortion. THAT is the ultimate goal.
Park,
I certainly did listen to what Fluke said. It wasn't all that cryptic. Nor are the reasons why women (or men) use birth control. So what I've stepped into was the crap left by the lame arguments of the lefties like Fluke. There's nothing new here, including the demand from lefties that someone else pay for their lifestyle choices.
And of course, the rest of my statements address:
1. How far from the moral and virtuous the left has moved; that the moral decline of our nation carries on with greater speed.
2. That I am a supporter of morality and virtue as the ideals toward which we should continue to strive.
3. That I am totally in tune with contemporary life to the extent that I recognize just how depraved it has become.
It is you and those like you who are lost, Parkie.
"What is at stake here is whether or not the federal gov't has the right or constitutional duty to force private companies and religious institutions to provide what they'd rather not.”
Then please raise hell about the minimum wage, child labor laws, and OSHA standards for workplace safety.
"1....2...3.."
And I was just commenting on your lack of imagination.
The problem with your statements about "lefties" is that it seems to include the vast majority of Americans. By your own definition of what constitutes a "lefty" you only prove.. yet again.. that you are unable to decipher what is acceptable in this country. While its fun chatting with you, you are clearly unable to come to any reasonable conclusion on this topic.
In other words, the "lame" arguments made by people like Ms. Fluke are the same arguments being made by women all over this country. These are reasonable women with reasonable expectations. Extremists like yourself are incapable of understanding this. The same could be said of the rest of your comment. While you may view yourself as some great moral arbitrator of "right vs. wrong", reasonable people dont like to be pushed around be arrogant old white men.
It seems Rush Limbaugh has apologized for his actions. At the same time you continue to defend his comments. Yet, adding only more prof to your extremism.
Sadly.. Marshall it is you that lost. Its only unfortunate that you dont even realize how badly you were beaten down.
A bit of a side note, while Rush will be Rush, I really feel sorry for the people that cant acknowledge that his comments were out of line and out of touch. I only hope this event erodes his popularity.
Then please raise hell about the minimum wage, child labor laws, and OSHA standards for workplace safety.
You beat me to it, Feo. Bravo!
If a married couple attending school is short on cash, then they are obliged to abstain from sex
The Sex Nazi! No sex for you!
The need for contraception implies sex for recreation.
Uh, yeah, so...?
So why not demand coverage for every form of recreation for which a student must pay?
Didn't you already establish that above regarding athletics?
Being pregnant is not a malady, illness, injury or deformity.
Apparently your wife has never been pregnant.
There's no misogyny here
Yep, slut is what people call any woman having recreational sex.
What about men who buy condoms?
Last time I checked, men don't get pregnant, and condoms do not require a prescription.
I recognize just how depraved it has become.
No sex for you!
I will address all three of you in one response and you all can decide which of you is the biggest fool.
First off, I did and still do oppose minimum wage policy, especially the last increase and any jerkwagon who wants to increase it again. It has contributed to the current unemployment woes by forcing employers to hire fewer people, especially young people who need entry level positions in order to begin their adult lives in the workforce.
But more importantly, where do you jokers get off telling me what issues should attract my attention? And, in a heinous and shameful bit of irony, two of you want to bring up child labor laws while supporting the legal murdering of the unborn! What a couple of twisted bastards! (I'd say "trio", but to be fair, Parkie didn't jump on that hell-bound bandwagon.)
Parkie, BTW, thinks I lack imagination while never doing more than saying I lack imagination. More irony.
Lefties do not comprise the vast majority of America. Polls show most people identify as leaning rightward. But that really doesn't matter. I can see our culture slipping away and yet that doesn't change anything about morality and virtue. Such things aren't a matter of voting totals. If all the world murdered, murder would still be wrong.
But it's clear that the three of you, one of whom fancies himself well studied, lack basic knowledge of human reproduction and the difference between contraception and abortion. The Pill is not a contraceptive. It works to prevent the attachment of the embryo to the uterine wall. If it worked to prevent fertilization, then it would be a contraceptive.
But back to Parkie's goofiness, what poll are you citing to show that most people demand that their contraceptives be covered by insurance?
"These are reasonable women with reasonable expectations."
By YOUR morally bankrupt standards perhaps. But not by standards of decency and personal responsibility. I would also hasten to add that they include women without much moral background who have been lured by the cheap rationalizations of hack liberals like yourselves. Many would change their tunes if given the chance to really learn about what they think they support.
continuing...
"While you may view yourself as some great moral arbitrator of "right vs. wrong", reasonable people dont like to be pushed around be arrogant old white men."
First of all, there's nothing "great" about my understanding of right and wrong. It's all very basic and has been part of our culture for hundreds of years. Reasonable people understand these things and don't need to be reminded of what they are. Whiney, self-centered people, like those on the left, know them as well and are too childish to hold themselves to them. They don't like to be reminded of them. They'd prefer to carry on with their self-gratifications, damn the consequences because they'll make other people pay for them if they can. By doing so when it is possible, they have, in their arrogance, pushed around the reasonable people. Reasonable people only seek to get the rest to be reasonable as well. But you refuse because you're all so self-centered.
"It seems Rush Limbaugh has apologized for his actions."
No. From what I've read, he's apologized for his choice of words. I've no doubt he maintains the sentiment as it is spot on correct. You've got a real problem if you think traditional notions of right and wrong constitute extremism. Unless of course you mean an extreme desire for the best for our culture. To that I plead most guilty.
"Sadly.. Marshall it is you that lost. Its only unfortunate that you dont even realize how badly you were beaten down."
On your best day you couldn't begin to explain how I possibly have lost anything.
"A bit of a side note, while Rush will be Rush, I really feel sorry for the people that cant acknowledge that his comments were out of line and out of touch."
Pay attention. Most people, even myself, have so acknowledged that he crossed a line. But only the moral reprobates, like yourselves, can't grasp the truth behind the crude words.
"If a married couple attending school is short on cash, then they are obliged to abstain from sex
The Sex Nazi! No sex for you!"
Nothing matters to Jim so much as sexual indulgence. Not one's goals, not one's finances, not one's own child in the womb. To Jim, responsibility equals fascism. What a reprobate!
"
So why not demand coverage for every form of recreation for which a student must pay?
Didn't you already establish that above regarding athletics?"
Is this supposed to be some kind of response? And by the way, fool, athletics has long been considered more than just games people play. They promote health, discipline, teamwork and a host of other character building traits, despite the corruption money has brought to it in colleges and universities. Not to mention that for some, it becomes a career. Do you think Fluke and women like her might branch off into careers of prostitution and porn? What character building traits are developed by indulging one's sexual urges? Get a clue, Jim.
My wife has been pregnant three times, Jimmy-boy. I can guarantee you she's never regarded any of them as malady, illness, injury or deformity. No woman I know would, either.
"There's no misogyny here
Yep, slut is what people call any woman having recreational sex."
Slut is what most women WERE called for having recreational sex outside of marriage. Just because the term isn't used anymore doesn't make it any less appropriate. It's still wrong morally and thus the term still applies. And as you know, what with Slutwalks and such, some women today wear the term as a badge of honor, demonstrating their moral depravity.
"Last time I checked, men don't get pregnant, and condoms do not require a prescription."
What's pregnancy got to do with it? I thought the whole issue was about covering contraceptives. Rubbers are contraceptives. Or didn't you know that?
I need only four letters to show you how stupid you can be: COCP.
while supporting the legal murdering of the unborn!
This is simply unreality. There is NO SUCH THING. Not of "legal murder" nor of support for such a thing.
They promote health, discipline, teamwork and a host of other character building traits
I could easily see the same being correctly said about sex.
No woman I know would, either.
You must not know many women who've been pregnant.
Bastards, huh? That's the level of discourse now? Sounds like the last whimpers of someone in a losing argument.
Feo,
You really need to stop and think before throwing around words like "stupid". There's a vast distinction between what something is meant to do and what it can or will do. I spoke to the latter.
Jim,
While the legal definition of murder is the illegal taking of a life, every instance of murder in the common understanding is present in the average abortion. It is the taking of a human life for personal gain, selfish reasons, and nothing akin to thwarting a true threat. So play with words all you like, as you libs are wont to do, but that won't change reality.
"I could easily see the same being correctly said about sex."
Of course you can. Because as indicated above, you libs see what you want to see, rather than acknowledge what is.
"You must not know many women who've been pregnant."
You must not know many women of character and honor.
"Sounds like the last whimpers of someone in a losing argument."
There you go seeing what you want to see again. None of you have come close to refuting my arguments.
average abortion
So "average" abortions should be illegal, but others not?
None of you have come close to refuting my arguments.
Perhaps because your arguments are non-refutable and I mean "non" and not "ir".
You must not know many women of character and honor.
All the women I know are of character and honor. However, I have almost never heard of a woman who at some time or another in their pregnancy didn't think of them selves as ugly, deformed, sick, and miserable.
Sure you did, Marshall. Sure you did.
You’re credibility is a joke.
Feo,
What do you know of credibility? You've just demonstrated a lack of it by demanding I speak out on child labor laws, as if you give a rat's ass, when you support abortion on demand, not even acknowledging the humanity of the unborn.
As to the pill, it's harmful aspects, particularly to the unborn, is exactly what opponents of it are concerned. Try paying attention.
And speaking of one who lacks credibility, not to mention integrity, we have Jim and his latest:
"So "average" abortions should be illegal, but others not?"
...as if my meaning was unclear. But since he is eager to posture as an idiot, I will explain that those abortions due to pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother are NOT among the average abortion. Even those as a result of rape and incest are not among the average abortions. You know this. You just can't help playing the dumbass.
"Perhaps because your arguments are non-refutable and I mean "non" and not "ir".'
As if it would matter. When you resort to stupid questions such as the one above about "average" abortions, it shows you've got nothing.
"All the women I know are of character and honor."
Your views of sexual matters indicates you have no idea what constitutes character and/or honor. So how would you know if it manifests in women you know?
"However, I have almost never heard of a woman who at some time or another in their pregnancy didn't think of them selves as ugly, deformed, sick, and miserable."
Self-perception of illness does not equate to actual illness. Or ugly or deformed. And discomfort and/or misery does not equate to illness, either. It does not mean there is a true health concern within the pregnancy.
"That's the level of discourse now?"
Haha.. Jim.. thats always been the level of discourse. Rush started it. Then Marshall actually attempted to justify it.
Just to be clear for a moment. It isn't that Rush called a young woman a slut and a prostitute, then went on to demand (just a joke!) she make a pornographic video that she would then make available for Rush to watch. In and of themselves, these remarks show quite clearly what Limbaugh think of women.
The real issue here, even more than whether or not Limbaugh is "mean", is the complete mischaracterization not only of Ms. Fluke's testimony before the House committee, but the deeply disquieting sexualizing of her. A transcript of Ms. Fluke's testimony can be found here. A transcript of Limbaugh's comments from February 29 can be found here.
It's not that Limbaugh is "mean". It's the combination of a complete misrepresentation of her testimony and the hyper-sexualizing of this young woman for his, and his audience's, prurient enjoyment.
"Self-perception of illness.."
Hate to break it to you, but pregnancy is a medical condition, ask your doctor.
Treating the pill like its some horrible drug is almost hilarious. Almost as bad is Marshall calling women that use the pill sluts, even the ones that use it for some other purpose than birth control.
Ha.. just to make Marshalls head explode:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=many-teens-rely-on-the-pill
Check that out.. many teens rely on the pill.. to treat acne.
"You’re credibility is a joke."
+1
"Haha.. Jim.. thats always been the level of discourse. Rush started it. Then Marshall actually attempted to justify it."
Haha.. Parkie. Rush didn't start it at all. Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Keith Olberman and many other lefty loons have been doing far worse for a long time. But there's a difference that is important for incompetents like yourself to learn: Rush used the term accurately to describe a woman that has sex outside of marriage. The libs use such terms solely as epithets and pejoratives. It is NOT a low level of discourse to "tell it like it is". Isn't that a lefty credo? You crybabies wimper over being called by the proper term that describes your behaviors. Too bad.
And I hate to break it to you, but pregnancy is not an illness. Ask your doctor. It is a medical condition, but not a negative one as is illness. It may bring with it negative concerns, but pregnancy itself is not one of them. I thought the right-wing was supposed to be anti-science!
Those ailments for which the pill is used aside from "contraception" do not require the pill at all. You can lie to yourself and say that it is only a matter of acne for which they take it. I would withhold such judgements. Acne is easily rectified with proper diet and hygiene.
You have no credibility.
"You can lie to yourself and say that it is only a matter of acne for which they take it. I would withhold such judgements. Acne is easily rectified with proper diet and hygiene."
ahh.. classy Marshall.. calling at least 8% of non-sexually active high school girls sluts. Nice. Did somebody say misogyny?
The best part is I give you a source and all you do is put your head in the sand. You are so far behind, you think you're ahead.
"pregnancy is not an illness."
I never called it an illness.. my only point was that a dr. would be interested if their patient was pregnant. Call it whatever you like, you're still going to see a dr. The way you act, its just 9+/- months of sitting around eating for two. Im still not convinced you dont think babies are delivered by stork.
"right-wing was supposed to be anti-science!"
Talk about something we dont have time for. Its not the right-wing, its nuts that cant figure out how science works. You happen to be one of them.
"Rush didn't start it at all."
LOL.. Right.. it was somebody else that called Sandra Fluke a slut. I knew Bill Maher was up to no good! Marshall, the level of discourse is in the gutter, not for "telling the truth", but in the choice of words. Rush appears incapable of speaking the truth on this topic, but its not that he is a liar. He has been a liar his whole life. Its that he defamed / insulted / bullied a women trying to give congressional testimony. Her worst act was expression of her POV. His response was juvenile and inappropriate. His "truth telling" is irrelevant.
"You have no credibility."
Ahh.. yes.. more classic Marshall. Closing with the "I know you are but what am I" line. Bravo.. What are you.. in the third grade?
Pathetic Parkie,
I've re-read my comment and find no evidence of having called any high-school girls sluts, sexually active or not. I did explicitly say that I will withhold such judgements. Do you need that explained to you? It appears that YOU have decided to ASSUME that teens respond truthfully to all surveys regarding their personal behavior. What do you do about surveys that where teens admit to lying on such surveys? That is, even though they don't have to give their names, some teens still won't respond honestly. Thus, there is no way for YOU to know with certainty about the credibility of teens you don't know when they respond to surveys of a sexual nature. Go ahead and look it up. With the results I found in mere moments, I maintain my position of withholding judgement on the veracity of teen claims regarding pill use. It would be very easy to hear that the pill might resolve an issue like acne or cramps, and then claim such a need in order to justify to their parents and doctor the need to have the pill prescribed. If the parent is a liberal, it's a slam dunk idea.
I almost forgot about your idiotic attempt to condescend:
"Treating the pill like its some horrible drug is almost hilarious."
And when I say "idiotic", like Rush, I use a term that is an accurate and appropriate description for your behavior. Read here, and here and here, but you'll first need to take your head out of your ass.
I also don't see where I accused you of calling pregnancy an illness. Try reading the posted comments rather than trying to be funny. You aren't funny, never were and I don't suspect you'll ever be. All you are for trying is pathetic. And considering the lack of substance in your comments, you don't need to elevate your level of "pathetic".
As to needing a doctor for pregnancy, that is more a "better safe than sorry" situation. Not all pregnancies require a doctor at all, and if you had any understanding of science (or history, for that matter) yourself, you would know this. Yes. I would prefer my wife, daughters, sisters and female friends check with their doctors when becoming pregnant. But the healthier they and their husbands are, the less necessary constant monitoring by a doctor is. So this doesn't equate to a "condition" in the sense of catastrophic illness or injury where medical attention is essential. Thus, you jokers can bail on this avenue as it leads nowhere but embarrassment for you. Pregnancy doesn't automatically require a doctor's attention, and more so, contraception doesn't require health insurance coverage as no contraception is required to prevent pregnancy. Except for the spineless.
continuing....
So far, science backs me up completely in this discussion. Where have I missed the mark science-wise? We've seen that we don't need contraceptive devices to prevent pregnancy. This is a scientific fact. We've seen that the pill is far from harmless. We've seen that pregnancy is not a "condition" as implied by the lefty loons.
Moving on...
"LOL.. Right.. it was somebody else that called Sandra Fluke a slut."
Instead of laughing like an idiot who just stepped in his own waste, try using your head...scratch that. That won't improve things. Rush didn't start using "harsh" terms. But Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut twice, and I don't recall that she did anything to justify it in the least. He just used the term because like most libs, he has no class and thinks he can. Rush at least tied the term to the implications of her testimony and the demands she made for covering contraceptives. She certainly didn't eliminate sexual behavior, as you tried to do with the bit about teen use for acne.
More to the point, lib commentators have long wallowed in crassness and lefties in general have proven themselves far more willing to use the harshest terms for the sole purpose of defaming, insulting and bullying because they really can't support their positions with logic and fact.
Someday, you'll really have to produce a "lie" that Rush has told. Look up the word "lie" first, because libs don't understand such terms. Geoffrey once produce a long list of what he insisted were lies George W Bush told. I showed how not one of them could even be loosely defined as a lie. And Geoffrey might actually be smarter than you. So be careful with this challenge.
As for what grade I'm in, note that when I challenged your credibility, I did so after showing your error. I've done it again in these last two comment posts. You merely accuse. I prove.
Its International Women's Day.. and I get the feeling Marshall isnt invited.
If you're invited, then it's not the type of event in which serious defenders of women would be interested in attending.
"serious defenders of women"
LOL.. a misogynist like yourself. You believe in stripping freedom from women and call yourself a "serious defender". Surly, by serious you mean Yosemite Sam. What upside down world are you living in?
I'm still in shock you would defend, albeit not very well, RLs comments.
How does that one argument go? Oh yes.. "lib commentators have long wallowed in crassness..." Priceless. I for one am giving you a standing ovation... with a very slow clap.
Misogynist? You should prove you know what it means by describing what I've done, said or supported that would indicate it is an appropriate appellation. Merely saying I support "stripping freedom from women" won't do it. That's no better than the word itself. It's just talk. It's just typical liberal name-calling. It should go something like this:
A woman testifies that she wants contraceptives covered by her school's insurance policy. What kind of woman wants other people to pay for her contraceptives? How many contraceptives does she need? She must be a slut.
See how that ties together?
In my case, I've demonstrated a better understanding of what healthier ways a woman can resolve her medical issues rather than use a poisonous substance like the synthetic hormones of a birth control pill. That is a far more serious defense of women than to suggest the pill is harmless and/or the best route for them to take.
As for the Georgetown, they do indeed cover the pill if prescribed for actual ailments not related to "contraception". This makes Fluke a liar as well, and the media and the lib establishment complicit in the lie.
Again, in your usual style, you claim my defense of Limbaugh's position as "not very well", but have yet to offer any opposing point of view that isn't, as you would say, like a third grade child saying "Nuh uh!" Your weak attempts to thwart my position have all been answered to, with no recourse for you but to try and change the subject to another angle you can't make work.
The reality is not that Limbaugh's position is indefensible, or that it is in any way wrong (the position, troll-boy, not the words he used to state it). It's merely that it is Rush Limbaugh speaking and his use of the word "slut" is like red meat to you sorry liberal reprobates. "Oh look! Rush called someone a "slut"! Now we can get 'im!!! *drool-slobber*"
As for lib commentators, the point is how hypocritical you libs are. Lib commentators have long wallowed in such name-calling, as they are without truth in their positions any more than any typical lib defending bad behavior. I don't recall you calling for Schultz or Maher to be fired.
"You should prove.."
I / we did prove it. Sorry you dont see or understand it. But, thats on you. I really dont know why you hate women, but its pretty clear you do.
"See how that ties together?"
LOL.. no.. I dont see how it ties together. Its nonsensical. Not only do you not understand what calling a woman a "slut" means in America, but you dont understand how the pill works. And, her wanting "other people" to pay for the pill.. yes.. Other people, like myself, are for freedom, America and apple pie.
"This makes Fluke a liar as well.."
Oh my.. You're spending wayyyy too much time at the conservative nut-house blogs.
"the word "slut" is like red meat to you sorry liberal reprobates"
Yet another place you fall flat on your face. Actual liberals are upset every day at the things RLs says. But the "liberals" that got pissed off were the vast majority of the country. You know, people with a strong moral compass. Thats why sponsors fled, triggering the apology. You really have a warped sense of what happened. Not every person attacking RL is a liberal.
"As for lib commentators, the point is.."
No. There is no point. Perhaps in a different discussion it would. But not in a discussion about Fluke-gate. Why you cant wrap your brain around this is beyond me.
I'm sure that no one has stopprd to consider the possibility that Limbaugh was using hyperbole or using an epic/mythic style of storytelling.
Who would and why?
How many contraceptives does she need?
Seriously?
Parkie,
You've run head-long into your usual stupidity. The boredom factor is rising exponentially with you.
Once again, you think you've made a point by simply making a statement with nothing to back it up. Case in point: misogynist. You couldn't prove it if I acted like a misogynist to help you do it. More importantly, I've done or said nothing that does any less than prove I'm more interested in their well being that you are.
I've shown how the pill is dangerous. I've shown that all the ailments not related to reproduction itself can be treated more safely and successfully without the use of harmful synthetic hormones of the pill.
As to other women's issues, I'm far more honest about them than you are. Here, you have made the ludicrous accusation that I am in support of inhibiting their freedom. That's way too stupid to be funny. Refusing to provide free contraceptives is not in any way an attack on women's freedom any more than refusing to provide them with free food. The real situation is that people like you, through the insipid demands of Fluke and activists like her, are inhibiting the already Constitutionally protected freedoms of others, in this case Catholic universities. Of course no one is inhibiting YOUR freedom to pay for her pills and patches, so get off your ass so as to relieve the pressure on your head and get out your checkbook.
"...no.. I dont see how it ties together."
Of course you do, liar. You just pretend not to, or refuse to. And I understand what "slut" means everywhere in the world it is used. It's no secret as it's been used forever. I also know that some lib women claim the word proudly, believing they are somehow more "modern" by acting like men without morals.
"And, her wanting "other people" to pay for the pill.. yes.. Other people, like myself, are for freedom, America and apple pie."
Wow! What an incredibly retarded attempt to make sense! "other people" paying for the pill....as I said, you are more than free to put up or shut up. Start a fund to provide free contraceptives for women going to a university that charge 30k per year. Call it "Idiots for idiot girls" so that girls who spend that kind of scratch to attend an expensive college but are too stupid to find all the already free pills can find freedom! My GOSH you are stupid!
Do me a favor, Brainiac. Find me all the founding fathers who described freedom and liberty as being dependent upon the money of other people.
"Yet another place you fall flat on your face. Actual liberals are upset every day at the things RLs says."
And the stupidity continues to flow like puss oozing from the open sores of a liberal with the freedom to have sex on other people's dime. For any conservative to dare use harsh terms is the red meat of which I spoke. The Bill Mahers and Ed Schutz's and Keith Olberman's and Rachel Madows can say pretty much anything they like and there is NEVER the outrage by lefties like yourself as there is if a Rush Limbaugh lowers himself to that all so common liberal level. And among the "vast majority" of Americans you think are outraged at Rush, I doubt you could prove most are outraged at the point he was making more than the words he used. The libs don't even care what he said or about whom. That's crap. You libs just are relishing the opportunity Rush gave you to pretend to be morally outraged. Again, Schultz calling Ingraham a "slut", or Maher calling Palin a "cunt"? The sound of crickets chirping is all we get from lefty hypocrites.
Here's another clever defense libs use: Rush has a bigger audience than the other lib commentators. As if THAT matters. It's either wrong to use such language or not. Libs are selective in who can get away with such language. Worse, libs don't even have to use the word appropriately.
And I've got more news for you, loser who doesn't listen to Rush anyhow. Rush isn't concerned with those advertisers who left. Sure. He would prefer they didn't. One advertiser offered to return after pulling their ads (I believe it was a mattress company, who was one of his oldest) and Rush declined. They won't be back, and they hadn't even broken their contract. Another, Carbonite, experienced something like a 13% drop in their stocks as investors decided they couldn't trust the management of a company that would flee over a little pressure from a small group of loudmouth lefties. Still the host with the largest audience in America, no doubt Rush is not lacking those who are eager to take the place of those who left. A flake like Fluke will not have much impact on Rush's popularity because he echoes the feelings and beliefs of a great many real Americans. You have a warped sense of reality. Not everyone who expressed displeasure with Rush's word choice disagree with what provoked it.
"Oh my.. You're spending wayyyy too much time at the conservative nut-house blogs."
You don't visit the sites I visit. You don't read the pundits I read, or the periodicals I read, or watch the people I watch. You aren't bright enough to understand them. So none of what I check out matches the phrase "nut-house blogs" in any way, except for yours, Geoff's, Dan's and guys like that. The one that informed me of that piece you reject without research actually talked to the Georgetown people who handle such issues as insurance. Why don't you once again get your head out of your ass and call them yourself and ask for yourself. Ask if a girl needs "the Pill" to treat a condition like, say, ovarian cysts, would their insurance cover it if her doctor says it's necessary. It's something any of the lib news organizations that covered Fluke's bullshit could have done themselves but didn't.
"No. There is no point. Perhaps in a different discussion it would. But not in a discussion about Fluke-gate. Why you cant wrap your brain around this is beyond me."
You're an idiot. There's no two ways around it. The fact is that Rush is a commentator who used the word appropriately. It might not have been the classiest move and/or choice of words, but as his analysis of the Fluke drivel went, he didn't use the word as a mere pejorative, as someone might who calls you an asshole. So the flap was most definitely about A commentator.
To then compare him to others in the business is appropriate and what we find is that his competitors on the other side of the ideological fence...you know, where the slime and filth truly is...use terms like "slut" and others without any connection to whatever issue is at hand. It's just name-calling. Rush made the tie that you are too stupid to see or too morally bankrupt to concede (you don't have to like the connection, but to say it isn't there or legitimate is to lie). She wants others to pay for her contraceptives. She spends $1000 per year for them. She claims that to be typical for other girls in her position. To pretend that all of them are taking them for non-sexual reasons is a lie. Her purpose was to force her morals (or lack of them) upon a Christian institution, for no other reason than to be an asshole looking to alter the culture. She's worse than a slut and should thank the God for which she has no use that "slut" was the worst she was called.
Finally, you are in no position, nor do you have the credibility OR intelligence, to dare suggest you can determine what the point of MY post is or what direction I allow it to take. That's what you have YOUR blog (that no one visits) for.
You use the word "slut" to describe a woman. Let alone you use the offensive / derogatory word to describe a woman you dont know and havnt even met. And you wonder why youre a misogynist.
"I've shown how the pill is dangerous. I've shown that all the ailments not related to reproduction itself can be treated more safely and successfully without the use of harmful synthetic hormones of the pill."
Umm.. no. You've had some links to alternatives that work for some people. But, the pill remains an acceptable prescription for women with many different uses.
"Of course you do, liar."
Wow. Marshall, dont get upset at me because you dont make sense. Your comment really does not make any sense and you really dont know what "slut" means. Perhaps you should look it up.. again.
"Carbonite, experienced something like a 13% drop in their stocks"
I really hope you have somebody else invest for you. This is actually a good example of how easily swayed you are by nut-house blogs and commentators. You actually seem to believe that the price drop has something to do with advertising on RL.
"Her purpose was to force her morals (or lack of them) upon a Christian institution, for no other reason than to be an asshole looking to alter the culture."
Ms. Fluke offered her testimony. That was her purpose. Yes, this act is an expression of her personal opinion. Her opinion is different that yours. But, it does not make her an "asshole" and does not mean that she is forcing her values on anybody else. And, your view of our culture as some stagnate entity is completely ridiculous.
"Finally, you are in no position, nor do you have the credibility OR intelligence, to dare suggest you can determine what the point of MY post is or what direction I allow it to take."
Alright. Discuss liberal commentators all you want. Its just irrelevant to what RL said about Ms. Fluke.
"That's what you have YOUR blog (that no one visits) for."
Haha.. Marshall, I dont even visit that blog. Only started it to make you stop complaining that I didnt have one. Which is it? Should I have one or not? You seem to be flip-flopping on this issue.
"Rush's comments aren't inaccurate even if a bit crude."
This seems like a big part of your "argument". Turns out the comments are inaccurate and they are crude.
For what its worth, I dont think RL should be "fired". Hes a nut that has been doing this for a long time. I just find it difficult to take anybody seriously that listens to his program.
"You use the word "slut" to describe a woman. Let alone you use the offensive / derogatory word to describe a woman you dont know and havnt even met. And you wonder why youre a misogynist."
I didn't use the word. I defended the use of a word applied to a woman whose testimony for the coverage of contraceptives implies it's appropriate usage. That you, and she, tries to imply that the demand is primarily for health reasons is insulting to the intelligence of thoughtful people. What's more, you and she imply that the health concerns presented to justify the demand can only be resolved by the free provision of the pill. I merely pointed out that this was untrue and not the best remedy for those ills. It's use is acceptable only for those not aware of the dangers of its use and the alternatives that exist. That you wish to deny this is a result of your own ignorance, both willful and otherwise.
In addition, my links were in response to your stupid claim that the pill was not harmful. You may recall your pathetic statement:
"Treating the pill like its some horrible drug is almost hilarious."
It is a horrible drug and I've shown why. You choose to ignore the facts due to your own reprobate inclinations.
"Ms. Fluke offered her testimony. That was her purpose."
Her purpose was to force a religious institution to alter it's practices to satisfy HER morality, or lack thereof. She used false info, such as the cost of the drugs, which are free from some sources and very cheap from others. And she used the stories of idiots, such as the girl who assumed treatment after a rape would not be covered, rather than to simply inquire of the institution.
What makes her an asshole is her enrollment for the purpose of bringing up this "anti-woman" nonsense in the first place. She's an activist, Parkie. Her purpose is to force change.
"You actually seem to believe that the price drop has something to do with advertising on RL."
That it dropped immediately following Carbonite pulling its ads from Rush's show indicates dissatisfaction with their management style by investors. What other explanation are you prepared to offer that is backed by actual evidence?
"Alright. Discuss liberal commentators all you want. Its just irrelevant to what RL said about Ms. Fluke."
It is NOT irrelevant to the reaction of liberal lunatics, which IS part of what the post is about. Note the last paragraph before the update. I clearly meant to speak on liberal reaction.
"Haha.. Marshall, I dont even visit that blog. Only started it to make you stop complaining that I didnt have one. Which is it? Should I have one or not? You seem to be flip-flopping on this issue."
I don't care if you have one or not. I didn't "complain" that you didn't have a blog. My point has always been that you do not comment with substance at any blog at which I've seen you appear, NOR do you have a blog of your own where you do, which you don't. It's just another place to post nothing of substance.
"This seems like a big part of your "argument". Turns out the comments are inaccurate and they are crude."
Not that YOU'VE been able to show. The comments are justified by virtue of the reasoning Rush used, whether you agree his reasoning is strong or not. THAT goes to my point when I compare him with the lib-weainie response to his comments vs their lack of response to lib commentators. Can't you follow anything? OF course not, because you are only concerned with mocking that which is in opposition to leftist ideology.
"I just find it difficult to take anybody seriously that listens to his program."
This is ironic. You suggest MOST lefties are simply Americans who favor contraception, so I must take their opinions seriously. Yet, you dismiss the legions of listeners, other Americans, that find Rush to be consistent with their points of view. The fact remains that you DON'T listen to Rush and don't know WHAT he believes or talks about unless some lefty gives their less than accurate snippet of his commentary.
a woman whose testimony for the coverage of contraceptives implies it's appropriate usage.
I guess that statement implies that you are living in the wrong century.
It's use is acceptable only for those not aware of the dangers of its use and the alternatives that exist.
I'm thinking this is none of your effing beeswax but is a matter between a woman and her prescribing physician.
It is a horrible drug and I've shown why.
Which drug would that be? Have you ever listened to the disclaimers for the medications advertized on TV? All drugs have side effects. Hell, my diabetes meds have side effects.
Millions of women use bc pills and millions more have used them. Some have had problems. The majority of them don't have problems.
"a woman whose testimony for the coverage of contraceptives implies it's appropriate usage.
I guess that statement implies that you are living in the wrong century."
No. It shows that unlike the corrupt, like yourself, the era has no bearing on right/wrong. But then, I'm sure the first thing you think of when you hear the word "contraceptives" is "ovarian cyst". Contraceptives are still primarily for sex without consequence (though many still abound) and a woman who has sex outside of marriage is no more a moral person than is the man with whom she is having it.
"I'm thinking this is none of your effing beeswax but is a matter between a woman and her prescribing physician."
Of course it is. But also of course is the fact that I was addressing a false charge of misogyny. To make sure women know the dangers of the pill and that there are better and safer alternatives is not always mentioned by your prescribing physician. Someone who truly cares about women's health would be concerned that this message is out there for them to hear.
"Which drug would that be?"
Too late to catch up if you weren't paying attention. Or are you suggesting that there is a vast difference between the different brands of BCPs on the market?
"Have you ever listened to the disclaimers for the medications advertized on TV? All drugs have side effects. Hell, my diabetes meds have side effects."
The disclaimers should serve as a warning that what is being sold is NOT good for people to ingest. "See if it's right for you"? How about, assume it ain't BECAUSE of the disclaimers? No drug is "safe". Synthetic substances are not the same as those they try to mimic and the body knows it. Continued use makes it even worse.
But then, drugs are simple and easy. They are perfect for those who don't have the spine to control their urges, or the discipline to implement natural means of restoring one's health.
"Millions of women use bc pills and millions more have used them. Some have had problems. The majority of them don't have problems."
You have no idea. Try reading the links I presented.
Oh my.. What a mess you are. You say that "the era has no bearing on right/wrong" and this is supposed to be some defense that you are living in the correct century.
"Of course it is."
LOL.. Marshall.. your medical history please.
"They are perfect for those who don't have the spine to control their urges, or the discipline to implement natural means of restoring one's health."
Ahh.. yes.. sounds perfectly reasonable to me. There are so many examples that run contrary to this statement.. and those examples are found with the pill. Let alone the whole host of other drugs.
Side note that makes this even better. RLs use of prescription drugs and your never-ending love of the man.
Not that this took more than two seconds to find, but abstinence family planning is used by less than half a percent of reproductive-age women. Compared to more than twenty-eight percent for the pill.
"Not that YOU'VE been able to show."
Oh.. I have. You just need to pay attention. Its called reading AND comprehension.
"The comments are justified by virtue of the reasoning Rush used, whether you agree his reasoning is strong or not."
There is some truth to your comment. But, Rush is "justifying" his comments AFTER he was in trouble. He is the one trying to recreate events and redefine words.
"Yet, you dismiss the legions of listeners, other Americans, that find Rush to be consistent with their points of view."
You mean an estimated 20 million Americans? Right. I really dont care what less than 1% of the population has to say. Especially when it comes to the hate RL shoves on a daily basis. I used to listen to his drivel. But, he just doesnt have a healthy grip on the world.
"The fact remains that you DON'T listen to Rush and don't know WHAT he believes or talks about unless some lefty gives their less than accurate snippet of his commentary."
Ahh.. yes.. he was taken out of context. Really.. its appropriate to call people names like "slut" and "prostitute" for three days. Again, the sad part is not that RL made these statements.. well that is sad.. but not shocking. The sad part is his drones defend RL. Worse some even pretend to claim some sort of moral authority.
"What other explanation are you prepared to offer that is backed by actual evidence?"
Do your own research. For once.
"I didn't use the word."
Yes. You said she was worse than a "slut" has no morals and.. according to you she's an "asshole". Not to mention.. you have stated that women using the pill.. by your definition are sluts. Who says chivalry is dead?
"It's use is acceptable only for those not aware of the dangers of its use and the alternatives that exist."
No. Its use is acceptable.. prescribed and used by people for a wide range of issues.
You and anybody else has no right to inter-fear (yes.. you are driven by fear) with a patient and their dr. Get over it. Besides, according to you all drugs are bad. I guess we are all immoral for taking Tylenol? Just where is this imaginary line in your head? You seem to be really out of touch.
the discipline to implement natural means of restoring one's health.
Yeah, I'll tell my brother with MS that he'll get better if he simply applies mud packs from the banks of the great gray-green greasy Limpopo river.
What a dick!
Let's see...so little time, so much foolishness to address...where to begin?
Dorklife it is.
"You say that "the era has no bearing on right/wrong" and this is supposed to be some defense that you are living in the correct century."
First of all, I can only live during the centuries in which my lifetime spans. I wouldn't waste my time arguing whether it is the "right" century for me.
Secondly, reprobates often use the argument that certain behaviors are no longer wrong or sinful due to the century in which we currently find ourselves, as if the era in which we live has any bearing on what constitutes right or wrong, sin or holiness. A pathetic and self-serving an argument as any reprobates will use to justify ignoring proper notions of right/wrong, and you'll use any that leaps into your spacious mind.
"LOL.. Marshall.. your medical history please."
What an idiot. Jim last words were regarding a woman's medical "beeswax" which he said "is a matter between a woman and her prescribing physician", to which I said "Of course it is." Try to keep up. Better yet, try to actually engage rather than pretending you're smart enough to catch me saying something improper or indefensible. You'll only continue to embarrass yourself. Or at least you would if you were smart enough to know why you should be embarrassed.
"Ahh.. yes.. sounds perfectly reasonable to me. There are so many examples that run contrary to this statement.. and those examples are found with the pill. Let alone the whole host of other drugs."
I could just about weep with sadness over how stupid you are. The above just CONFIRMS the statement you think you are countering. It is true that most people run to a pill, any kind of pill, rather than alter the lifestyle that led to the symptoms they hope to alleviate with said pill. Sadly, and this is sincere sadness now as opposed to the sarcastic sadness over your stupidity, most people who rely on drugs are unaware of the natural remedies so easily available because 1) they believe their doctors are infallible and up on EVERY option, which is woefully untrue, and 2) they never think to look for themselves. But many who do do not want to put themselves through what it takes to correct the bad choices that led to their ailments. We see this with people who won't curb their eating habits, or those who refuse to exercise. Then of course there are complete clinical idiots, like yourself, for whom their is little hope.
To your side note, Rush can indeed be among those either too lazy or too ill-informed on the alternative options that exist. If true, it is meaningless info for our purposes here. What's more, it is absolutely meaningless to point out the human imperfection of anyone who speaks the truth about anything, especially morality and sin. It's just a lame ploy libs like yourself like to use. What a waste of time and a completely sad attempt.
more...so much more...
No time to respond to all the foolish Liberal arguments here. Just scanned the thread and noticed this one:
"While you may view yourself as some great moral arbitrator of "right vs. wrong", reasonable people dont like to be pushed around be arrogant old white men."
Yeah, like those arrogant old men who legalized the crushing and dismembering of innocent but unwanted human beings back in 1973. I never notice the pro-aborts complaining about that.
"...abstinence family planning is used by less than half a percent of reproductive-age women. Compared to more than twenty-eight percent for the pill."
Please, if you have any possible way of doing so (this should be funny), explain exactly what the relevance of this information is to the topic at hand. If mean to speak of effective means of contraception, nothing beats abstinence for it's perfection. If you mean to speak to what forms of contraception people use in order to continue engaging in intercourse without risking pregnancy, that would eliminate abstinence from the discussion, wouldn't it Einstein?
"Oh.. I have. You just need to pay attention. Its called reading AND comprehension."
This is where "LOL" is entirely appropriate, especially considering you haven't come close to leaving me without an easy response to your "proofs". But then, like the scorecards you used to display, I'm well sure you think you're "winning". How sad.
"Ahh.. yes.. he was taken out of context. Really.. its appropriate to call people names like "slut" and "prostitute" for three days. Again, the sad part is not that RL made these statements.. well that is sad.. but not shocking. The sad part is his drones defend RL. Worse some even pretend to claim some sort of moral authority."
This could almost justify a post of its own, it's so stupid. I never said Rush was taken out of context. Indeed, context is everything, but you haven't considered the context at all. You've only focused on his use of the words he used so that you can demonize him as if he's done something lib commentators don't do routinely. As if somehow it's worse when he uses it, despite the fact that he didn't use it as a mere epithet or pejorative like your lib commentators do. So yeah, I defend him for sure against idiots like you who only look to attack him and use this as an excuse like red meat to a jackal. That is far sadder than having to defend against such crap. But if we don't, some might think think that idiots like yourself must be right. It would be another case of good people doing nothing.
As to moral superiority, there's no questions simply because we defend what the word means from the perspective of human history and thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teachings.
"But, Rush is "justifying" his comments AFTER he was in trouble."
Not at all, fool. His justification came in the lead up to the use of the words. Afterwards he merely apologized for using them (based on what I've read about it---I don't need to hear anything further since despite his word choice, his meaning was spot on.)
"You mean an estimated 20 million Americans? Right. I really dont care what less than 1% of the population has to say."
Actually, Einstein, that would be about 7% that you don't care about, while you are incredibly concerned about the just over 10% that uses the Pill for whatever reason. So what's your cut-off for caring? 8.5% of the population? 11.3%?
even more...
"Especially when it comes to the hate RL shoves on a daily basis."
AH! There's that desperate accusation of "hatred" upon which you can never help but fall back when the going gets tough. Since I've never heard Rush state that he hates anyone (he may have, but I've never heard it in all the opportunities I've given him over the years past), you obviously are once again going on the fact that he says things you find offensive, or insist is offensive for the sole purpose of creating reasons to be hateful yourself toward him, like you are toward every conservative who speaks the truth. Quite frankly, by your own standards, you are among the most hateful yourself, as your comments are rarely more than attempts to disparage or diminish the opinions of others, and you do so with far less reason and logic than Rush or any other conservative, including myself. No one hates like the tolerant lefty.
As to your stock link, it tells me nothing since I referred to what someone said about the stock after the announcement of their withdrawing their ads. I don't know what day that was exactly and I don't care. I do see that it has trended downward in the last few weeks. If there is a big support for dumping Rush, one would expect to see a surge upward if the nation is as aghast as you wish it was. (Also the link says nothing about why the stock went down, so you have again proven nothing.)
"You said she was worse than a "slut" has no morals and.. according to you she's an "asshole". Not to mention.. you have stated that women using the pill.. by your definition are sluts."
I stand by the first part, despite your selective retelling of the statement. But I was far more specific regarding women using the pill. Try to be more honest, or, better yet, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about as well as what I'm talking about. There will be less confusion that way.
"No. Its use is acceptable.. prescribed and used by people for a wide range of issues."
You are so typical of the lefty who misses the point. You could compete with Geoffrey for that contest and likely win (or not...hard to say for sure). By acceptable, those people not mentally as deficient as you would understand that I was referring to acceptable when weighed against other options of which most of the women using the Pill are either unaware or unwilling to make the effort to try. Women truly concerned about their health would find synthetic ANYTHING unacceptable measured against more natural and side-effect free alternatives. Geez! It's like I gotta paint you a freakin' picture!
just a bit more...
"You and anybody else has no right to inter-fear (yes.. you are driven by fear) with a patient and their dr."
When you can find the part where I proposed such a thing, let me know. But fear? Absolutely. Because I DO care about what is REALLY healthy and harmful to people in general and women specifically (for the purpose of this "discussion"), I DO fear the consequences women will suffer from continued use of harmful products like the Pill. That's not misogyny. It's compassion. What YOU and other lib liars display is support for a lefty agenda that purports to do all sorts of lovely things in order to draw sheep to your cause.
"Besides, according to you all drugs are bad. I guess we are all immoral for taking Tylenol?"
Good gosh, one comment more stupid than the next. Drugs are bad because they are harmful. YOU'RE immoral for trying to pretend the main purpose women take the pill is to alleviate illness rather than to engage in sexual intercourse with less risk of pregnancy, regardless of pregnancy occurs and then destroys the embryo. So are women who know better but take the Pill anyway. Women who aren't married and take the Pill to have sex with less risk of pregnancy are immoral. Are you beginning to see the line, Sparky? Probably not. Reprobates have a hard time with such things.
Gosh this was fun. Thanks for all the softballs. Come back when you want to play fast pitch.
Now Jimmy,
"Yeah, I'll tell my brother with MS that he'll get better if he simply applies mud packs from the banks of the great gray-green greasy Limpopo river.
What a dick!"
First of all, I don't know your brother well enough to know if he really is a dick, but I don't see how that's relevant here anyway. Why would you bring that up?
But if you heard that some MS sufferer was getting better because he simply applies mud packs from the banks of the great gray-green greasy Limpopo river and you didn't think it was credible enough to tell your brother, you'd be one hell of a dick for sure because to try it is up to him, not your notion of what makes sense or not. Not only that, you pompous prick, even if MS was the one ailment that would not be improved by alternative methods, and there's no reason why it can't be, it wouldn't diminish the point one iota. Nice try with the usual lefty "let's-use-this-exception-to-pretend-the-general-sentiment-is-worthless", like you guys do with abortion and now contraception. That crap might work with other liberals, but not intelligent people.
BTW, I've known an MS sufferer who found some relief with a nutritional supplement. Not a cure, but some relief she hadn't felt in some time. And that was due to simply one supplement. I haven't seen or spoken to her in many years so I don't know what's become of her. If your brother has done nothing but receive treatment from standard medicine, he should do more. I would. Traditional medicine is limited to what the medical establishment teaches and supports. Much of it is based on profit from what can be patented.
I thought the left were the open minded ones.
"It's like I gotta paint you a freakin' picture!"
At what point does a supplement cross the line into becoming a drug? Have you stated if Tylenol is acceptable?
"Drugs are bad because they are harmful."
Marshall, lots of things are harmful and we still use them. You're going to have to do better.
What happened to your Carbonite argument?
"He apologized directly for his poor choice of words."
I guess. Too bad the public doesnt seem to believe him.
"So what's your cut-off for caring?"
I'll start to care about RLs listeners once they join the rest of the country. Until then, they are just extremists listening to a Jim Jones character on the radio. 20 million people on the fringes of American politics dont matter.
As we have discussed, RL plays into the worst nature of people. Sadly he has gained an audience for this.
Calling anybody a "slut" or "prostitute" is inappropriate. These are words of hate.
.. "It's not a matter of "you do it, too"."
lol..
"I DO fear"
So.. we agree.
"the main purpose women take the pill is to alleviate illness"
Umm.. no.. Never said that. I have said that alleviating illness is one of the reasons people use the pill.
Taking the pill is an acceptable form of birth control. And using birth control is acceptable in the United States. Dont lose sight of that. You can live your life how you wish, but leave enough space for others to do the same.
"And of course, the continued presentation of sex as a gift from God, is a distortion and is unsupportable."
You dont like contemporary society. People are not like you. You are out of touch. You are the fringe.
"Thanks for all the softballs. Come back when you want to play fast pitch."
Ahh.. more misogyny. You just cant get out of your own way.
Any more thoughts from inside the bubble?
"your medical history please"
Jeeshh Marshall. Remember YOU are the one trying to regulate what drugs are available to women. You have a problem with how the pill is prescribed. My point was to ask, what ails you? Unless, of course, you have never had a medical issue. Have you ever seen a dr?
I actually agree with you that drugs are often over used in our culture. But, our personal ideology is of little help in this debate.
"eaving me without an easy response to your "proofs"
Marshall, your responses have been childish and hardly address my points. Typically, you first make some insulting comment and follow through with an off-point solution.
"You suggest MOST lefties are simply Americans who favor contraception"
Umm.. almost. I suggest that most Americans* favor contraception. Further, most women use the pill.
*Americans refers to the 300+/- million people living inside the United States of America. A country located between Canada and Mexico in N. America.
"I don't need to hear anything further since despite his word choice, his meaning was spot on"
Sooo.. we agree? After all this we agree. RL was completely off his rocker for calling a woman a "slut" and "prostitute". RLs meaning was to get people excited. He did that. He also stepped over the line. Do you really not understand why people were / are upset over this round of hate?
"You've only focused on his use of the words he used so that you can demonize him as if he's done something lib commentators don't do routinely"
The words he used to describe Ms. Fluke were inappropriate. Nobody, that expects to have advertisers, should be using this type of language. The fact that RL did it and got in trouble for it just makes you upset, so you find a convenient scapegoat, liberal commentators. This is why wanting to discuss liberal commentators is irrelevant. You seem to only be able to parrot what you hear on right-wing radio.
You even continue..
"So yeah, I defend him for sure against idiots like you who only look to attack him and use this as an excuse like red meat to a jackal."
First, you attack, then heroically crush your straw man.. only to triumphantly protect your victim. Jessh.. Marshall.. its pathetic.
"It's just a lame ploy libs like yourself like to use."
Yes. Marshall, RLs drug use and use of drugs and drugs for sex is not relevant to his rampaging misogyny. It was a side note after all.
That said, you dont seem to have a problem with viagra. Or lying.
"That crap might work with other liberals, but not intelligent people"
Yet another mistake.
Marshall, most Americans use drugs prescribed by their dr. This is the general sentiment. This is the problem with your argument. Again.. for the one millionth time.. you are confusing "liberals" with "Americans".
Sparkie,
"At what point does a supplement cross the line into becoming a drug? Have you stated if Tylenol is acceptable?"
Well, there are supplements that are synthetic representations of the nutrients they purport to deliver. Those who are into these things do not regard them as acceptable choices when matched against supplements derived from natural sources. But you again conflate the meaning of "acceptable" as I'm using it. I use it in terms of what options are available and what is the best of them. ANY drug is acceptable if its life is on the line. Chemotherapies have their place, but are poisonous and do not "cure" anything. Tylenol is a quick fix, but not the healthiest choice. It is acceptable when one hasn't the time or means at the ready to deal with the ache being treated.
But for those people truly concerned with health, no synthetic is acceptable when measured against natural options equally available. If you still can't grasp the distinction, I don't have the time to paint that picture for you.
"Marshall, lots of things are harmful and we still use them."
Duh. Hardly the point. It is YOU who will have to do better.
"What happened to your Carbonite argument?"
It still awaits an intelligent response. You've yet to provide one. Besides, it wasn't a main point anyway. You don't score points by attacking a side bar, even if you actually refute it, which you haven't.
"20 million people on the fringes of American politics dont matter."
What a fool you are. That's just the 20 mil who listen to talk radio. that doesn't account for others who agree with his general philosophy. For example, I don't listen to him at all anymore because of my schedule. I agree with his general philosophy. To double the amount of people who agree would be a conservative guess on your part.
"As we have discussed, RL plays into the worst nature of people."
No. That's only as you have accused. You haven't shown that this actually happens just because YOU and other libtards don't like what he says. Lefties make their bones on playing on the worst nature of people.
Gotta go, more later.
"Well, there are supplements that are synthetic representations of the nutrients they purport to deliver."
Marshall, before you go any further. I just want to be clear on this. My question wasnt to "get you". It was to flush out what you actually intended to say. I dont know you and and I dont know where you stand on the issue of drugs... over the counter.. prescribed.. ect. The way your comments have read before, it sounds as if you are completely against any use.
"It still awaits an intelligent response"
Marshall.. the stock / company has been doing poorly for some time. Perhaps pulling ads from RL had some impact, perhaps not. Nobody can tell for sure. If you really wanted to prove your point you would submit a study that reviews / analyses more than one data point.
"That's just the 20 mil who listen to talk radio."
Yes. The ones that listen to RL. I dont find them relevant. I think it is sad that they listen and follow him. Im glad you have something more productive to do with your life. What else is there to say?
Similarly, I dont find people on the edge of the political spectrum to be very helpful either. Such is life. You act like I'm somehow persecuting the far-right. The truth is very different.
"That's only as you have accused."
ZOMG.. He called the woman a "slut" and "prostitute" for three days. And you think this is appropriate?
RL is a shock-jock type of political commentator. I dont think anybody is shocked that he would use this language and its not the first time people have been upset at his comments. This is why people listen to him.
"The fact remains that you DON'T listen to Rush and don't know WHAT he believes or talks about unless some lefty gives their less than accurate snippet of his commentary."
And.. it turns out you dont listen to him either.
I don't know how much time I'll have to spend here right now. I'd rather not try to respond if I can't respond totally, but we'll just have to see how it goes. In the meantime, YOUR responses (Parklife) before I'm through only serve to further distort what the hell the point of this post was in the first place. But I'll deal with it as best I can. So, picking up where I think I left off...
"Calling anybody a "slut" or "prostitute" is inappropriate. These are words of hate."
It is the way lib commentators like Maher and Schultz have done it. They simply use terms like that because, like all libs, they think they are justified simply because...as if because they believe the person about whom they speak is evil, anything goes.
But Limbaugh did not use it in a pejorative manner. He used it as a conclusion to his analysis of what her testimony means once the lib whining about economically burdened law students at a Jesuit university is stripped away. Again, you can disagree with that analysis, but to pretend the term isn't a logical conclusion based on his presentation is dishonest. It's far more "hateful" to continually accuse conservatives of being hateful, simply because you're unable to understand the logic of their arguments, as you've showed here. Maher and Schultz are hateful when they use the terms because they don't provide any context that justifies the use of those terms. Rush would have been far better off if he simply said everything he did, but stopped at the point of "...then what does that make her?" and left the answer to the listener. Other equally fitting words could have then worked. Like "moocher".
""He apologized directly for his poor choice of words."
I guess. Too bad the public doesnt seem to believe him."
You'd like to believe that, but you have no polling data to show just how many people even care, much less believe his apology or not. That's just you wishing again. Because of your hatred.
""I DO fear"
So.. we agree."
Not really. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from commenting on these incredibly small snippets as if you are actually making a real comment. It takes more time than I have to spend to find that you're just failing once more to be clever.
"
"the main purpose women take the pill is to alleviate illness"
Umm.. no.. Never said that. I have said that alleviating illness is one of the reasons people use the pill."
First of all, the actual statement was as follows:
" YOU'RE immoral for trying to pretend the main purpose women take the pill is to alleviate illness rather than to engage in sexual intercourse with less risk of pregnancy, regardless of pregnancy occurs and then destroys the embryo."
... throughout this entire exercise, you and Jim continue to try and focus on the non-contraceptive purposes of the Pill. It is the point, you know, that Fluke is pretending that because SOME chicks claim a medical need for the Pill not related to contraception, therefor all contraception should be covered by the university's insurance plan.
more...
"Taking the pill is an acceptable form of birth control. And using birth control is acceptable in the United States."
It's acceptable to those who don't know what it does to them. It is acceptable because it is touted as safe to use. It is accepted because many women ignore what it can and does do despite claims that it prevents conception, when often it doesn't. It is accepted because our culture has decayed to the point where actual birth control is regarded as unsophisticated, and sex without consequence is valued above all else, even the millions of children who lose their young lives for its sake.
"You dont like contemporary society. People are not like you. You are out of touch. You are the fringe."
I don't like what contemporary society has become. I grieve for those who think it has improved as regards these types of issues. But I am not out of touch. People like me have never lost touch with reality and truth. People like you have let go and refuse to touch truth and reality. You didn't lose touch. You withdrew from truth and reality as if it was a hot coal.
""Thanks for all the softballs. Come back when you want to play fast pitch."
Ahh.. more misogyny. You just cant get out of your own way."
Misogyny??! What the hell are you talking about??!! I'm referring to your lame arguments that are so easily refuted and exposed as shallow and self-serving, not to mention illogical and short on thought.
"Remember YOU are the one trying to regulate what drugs are available to women."
When you can find the part where I proposed such a thing, let me know. Preventing the gov't from forcing anyone to supply every drug some activist idiot demands is what I support. This doesn't deny anyone access to drugs from those who choose to sell them. Fluke demands that Catholics act in a manner that is contrary to their Christian beliefs. I'd say that I'd support providing her enough contraceptives so that she can go F herself, but that wouldn't be Christian of me to do so.
"You have a problem with how the pill is prescribed."
The previous paragraph states the problem I have. It's the demands of people like Fluke. Frankly, I have a big problem with anyone demanding anything be covered by insurance companies who have themselves decided what they are prepared to cover. If the market is such that a particular insurance company cannot compete with those who are willing to cover anything, then they will alter their practices or go out of business. That's how it's supposed to work. Not by gov't force.
But for this discussion, the subject is gov't forcing faith based organizations and business people to act against their beliefs.
"I actually agree with you that drugs are often over used in our culture. But, our personal ideology is of little help in this debate."
Personal ideology drives all policy debates.
"Marshall, your responses have been childish and hardly address my points. Typically, you first make some insulting comment and follow through with an off-point solution."
Perhaps you could support any of the above with a complete example. And not just the insulting comment. I'm quite unashamed to admit I employ them. But they are appropriate considering your less than intelligent "points".
more....
"Umm.. almost. I suggest that most Americans* favor contraception. Further, most women use the pill."
Using your own link, I found that 10% of women use the Pill. Not close to "most". But the issue of contraception itself is for another day and not relevant to the point here.
"Sooo.. we agree? After all this we agree. RL was completely off his rocker for calling a woman a "slut" and "prostitute"."
Not even close. It's just a matter of propriety. Use of the word "slut" was not necessary to make the legitimate and spot on point. And Rush is not Maher or Olberman and doesn't attract people by the use of "shock". He attracts people with his good sense, logic and astute understanding of the left's mindset. Four hours per day, five days per week...he's bound to say something that goes too far once in a while. Especially considering how long he's been doing it. Big deal. Leave it to libs to pretend its typical of him. You get far less time on these blogs and look at how much stupid crap YOU say. As I said, lefties jump on such things and pretend it means more than it does. Talk about crying!
Gotta go. Try to restrain yourself until I'm all caught up or I'll just refuse to post your stuff.
"You'd like to believe that, but you have no polling data to show just how many people even care, much less believe his apology or not. That's just you wishing again. Because of your hatred."
Ugh..
I think you confuse "hate" with "not caring". I really dont care about RL. He hardly impacts my life.
"SOME chicks"
Really?
"It's acceptable to those who don't know what it does to them."
This argument doesnt go anywhere. People use the pill. Its that simple.
"You withdrew from truth and reality as if it was a hot coal."
? Santorum says everybody should speak English.
"Misogyny??!"
ha.. I thought you would say that. Honestly, I'm too tired to explain softball vs. fast pitch to you.
"I'd support providing her enough contraceptives so that she can go F herself"
Misogyny??!
"That's how it's supposed to work. Not by gov't force."
There is a difference between "supposed to" and how it actually works.
"the subject is gov't forcing faith based organizations and business people to act against their beliefs."
The belief interferes with patients rights.
"Use of the word "slut" was not necessary to make the legitimate and spot on point."
Right. That is the problem. He used the word and diverted attention away from the actual issues. People are upset because of his word choice, not his opinion. And that.. is hardly good sense. The actual issue should be debated and we, as a country, should find a solution.
"Big deal."
Right. His comments dont surprise me. RL offended more than just liberals. He offended lots of people. Presumably he offended conservatives as well. Its not liberals that you seem to have a problem with, its the general public that does not find this kind of language appropriate.
BTW, I thought this was a little interesting.
Since you keep posting no matter what, and since I don't have the time to keep up, I will just address you last. Any questions or comments from previous posts you'd like to see addressed will need to be restated.
I find it ironic that after saying that you don't care what 1% of the nation thinks (Rush listeners), you'd offer a poll of 1000 people to support the idea that most people don't believe Rush's apology.
Without subscribing, I had no way of determining who was polled, how often they listen to Rush, how many are listen regularly, how many are fans or opponents and a host of other pertinent questions. For example, if all lib responders were like you, I have no doubt they did not believe the apology sincere since I don't believe lib responders are sincere. Libs like yourself don't understand Rush when they DO listen, as this issue clearly demonstrates, and hate him from the get go. Thus, their responses are worthless.
If the responses were all from conservatives who listen to and are familiar with Rush, then your poll might have some value. I would also need to see similar polls that followed every utterance of such words from lib commentators/entertainers to see how the libs reacted to them to further lend credibility to purported "outrage" expressed now. This is part of the intention of this post, to compare how the libs respond to similar utterances by their own, especially given the differences in the circumstances the led to the utterance.
As to whether or not I confuse "hate" with "not caring", I do not. You believe I'm hateful, or that Rush is hateful, because of the fearless expression of opinions, not the opinions themselves. Lefties don't respond to the opinions because their opposition to them is so weak.
Look at this issue. The issue has been a matter of the right-wing response to the intention of forcing a religious organization or entity to act in a manner contrary to its faith and beliefs; to force it to act against its right to express its faith in the way they live and/or do business.
But what does the left do? They lie and say it's a war on women. And they make it about a mythical right-wing hatred of women. That in itself is a hateful thing to do.
Do you hate Rush? Clearly you do. Most libs do. Few of you have any idea what the hell he's even saying or what he supports or opposes and why, which is where all debate should be focused.
Your reaction to my use of the word "chicks" is another aspect to this liberal dishonesty. It is as if to say libs never use anything other than the exact word in discussion, never using slang or common expressions, and that it means something untoward when right-wingers do. What a crock. Keep in mind your false accusation of misogyny whenever you refer to a woman by any other term other than "woman" (or "lady" or "female"). I don't for a minute believe you are so careful.
What is softball is your attempts to argue your position, whatever the hell that is. A fast pitch or hardball argument would not elicit a response so easily. It would force a pause to consider and make a response difficult. None of yours has because they are all so weak and cheap, and rarely address the real issue.
You seem to act as if you are exposing something negative or lacking in common sense in my arguments, often deriding them as childish or some other nonsense. This would have more credibility if it was joined by a tough argument from you, based on facts and evidence against which no argument can be made. This has never happened.
more...
""I'd support providing her enough contraceptives so that she can go F herself"
Misogyny??!"
Of course not. I could have easily said it about you, since you support her lame argument. What that be misogynistic to tell you the same thing? The suggestion is not sex-dependent and thus, not misogynistic. Softball once again.
""It's acceptable to those who don't know what it does to them."
This argument doesnt go anywhere."
The negative effects of the pill is part of the argument that drives right-wing opposition. It doesn't go anywhere because of the moral deficiencies of the left, not because the argument isn't sound and fact based.
""You withdrew from truth and reality as if it was a hot coal."
? Santorum says everybody should speak English."
Many are frustrated in dealing with foreigners who won't or haven't learned the language. It interferes with doing business and as this is an English dominate country, all should speak it when doing business. Simple.
"There is a difference between "supposed to" and how it actually works."
Another way to differentiate between left-wing and right. The right understands how things are supposed to work and why that is better. The left is satisfied with how things work if how things work works to their advantage regardless of the effects on the culture.
"The belief interferes with patients rights."
Not in the least and that hasn't been demonstrated at all.
more later...restrain yourself until then.
"Right. That is the problem. He used the word and diverted attention away from the actual issues."
This is incredibly hilarious considering the pretend hearing at which Fluke was given the floor, used her testimony to divert attention from the actual issue of Obama's intention to force religious institutions to act against their firmly held religious beliefs, thereby arrogantly ignoring the Constitution's prohibition of such interference in the religious expression of USA citizens.
"People are upset because of his word choice, not his opinion. And that.. is hardly good sense."
If the left didn't spend so much time trying to get him fired, we'd be left with the opinion of some that his word choice was unfortunate and beneath him, some might have complained and some advertisers might have as well. But that wasn't enough for the Rush-haters, who did not project anything like that "outrage" toward their own who used similar words as mere pejoratives.
"The actual issue should be debated and we, as a country, should find a solution."
I've listed solutions for Fluke's lame complaints here. They've been out there for anyone to find. The Constitutional breeches are more serious. Libs need to study the Constitution and our founding to better understand what this country is supposed to be about. Then, these issues won't arise in the first place. As that isn't likely to happen, the quickest solution is anybody but Obama in November.
"Right. His comments dont surprise me."
You haven't shown you even understand any of them. Worse, most of what you "know" about Limbaugh is that which you've created, imagined and heard about from other people who hate him as much as you do without their having listened to him any more than you have.
"Presumably he offended conservatives as well. Its not liberals that you seem to have a problem with, its the general public that does not find this kind of language appropriate."
Conservative acknowledge the inappropriate aspect of using certain words on the airwaves. In this case, I highly doubt that too many, IF any, conservatives were "offended". This is because, first of all, conservatives understood the context in which it was said. If there is anything truly offensive about it, it is that it was a cheap and easy shot to take. From the standpoint of entertainment, not much effort was required to come up with that angle. I expect better from Rush.
Indeed, most conservatives expect better from Rush than to act like a lib in using such terms on the air, though again, the context mitigates the situation as it was not used as a mere pejorative.
Whatever negative reaction this has provoked in conservatives, rest assured its level is relative to the situation, unlike the hypocritically false outrage you and other libs have expressed. Indeed, compared to his comments about Chelsea Clinton years ago, this incident is a real yawner.
"Its not liberals that you seem to have a problem with, its the general public that does not find this kind of language appropriate. "
No. It's libs.
Finally, nothing regarding Bill Maher is interesting. The guy is unworthy of any attention. He is not funny and thus not worthy of the title of "comedian". He is not intelligent, insightful, honest, kind or tolerant in the lib sense of the word. I clicked the link, saw it was about him, and didn't spend a moment.
Post a Comment