I wasn’t going to comment on yet another incident of vile hatred spewing from Republican spokesman Limbaugh. Now I need to speak up. One reason is to support and report the fact that corporations have spoken up, in their way, that is meaningful even to the fanatics of the radical Right. Sleep Number, The Sleep Train, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom, Citrix, Carbonite, and ProFlowers have pulled their ads from Limbaugh’s hate show. Several others are considering following their lead. Only when faced with losing sponsors did Rush "Mr. Oxycontin/viagra" Limbaugh even pretend to apologize to the woman he called a slut.
The second, and primary, reason I must address this topic is this:
Hate is a contagious and toxic infection on humanity. Limbaugh’s hate was passed on to an innocent girl with a painful medical condition treated by birth control medication.
From the article:
The note was in her locker when she opened it before her first class. She was so upset that she went to her teacher in first period and asked to be excused to go to the bathroom. She said for first and second period she tried not to be too upset- she cried a little bit but was just trying to figure out who would leave such a piece of trash in her locker. By third period, she had shown the note to a couple of her friends and they were so helpful, trying to play detective and at the same time telling her she should just ignore the stupid people!
She managed to get through a math quiz and Spanish test and headed off to lunch in a pretty solid frame of mind. And that's when it really fell apart; apparently, the girls from the day before were the authors of the note. They lined up behind my daughter to get their lunch tray and started in on her. "Birth control whore", "I told my mom you were on the pill and she said you were nothing but a little tramp" "My mom said some guy she listens to on the radio was just talking about girls like you- he even said you were a slut!" "Yeah, my mom said the same thing, said it's about time people spoke up and weren't afraid to tell the truth"!
They laughed, they harassed, they said so many things my daughter couldn't begin to remember it all- she walked back to her table without food and told her friends what was going on. She cried through lunch and through the rest of the day. She said she almost went to the office to call me to come get her but she was trying to be strong and not let them win! The last class of the day, however, was the final straw- it's her history class and 2 of these little monsters are in the class with her.
They start the class off by talking about current events. One of the little witches brought up Rush Limbaugh and the (male) teacher said that he was an American Icon- sometimes he says things that can be construed as insensitive but overall, he was one of the few people left in today's media who was not afraid to speak the truth!
Please read the full story. And then, please go to the link for the petition to remove the hateful arrogant Limbaugh off Armed Forces Radio. Our tax dollars must not be used to promote the evil of the radical Right.
Here is the petition and link:
Sec. Panetta, Get Rush Limbaugh Off Armed Forces Radio NOW! No tax money for abusive, divisive, insulting language.
It is not bad enough that he provides partisan blather, that he demeans our President.
He has regularly demeaned women.
His remarks this week were well beyond the pale of what should be broadcast to our military and their families, supported with our tax dollars.
We have a moral objection to our tax dollars being used for such a purpose.
You should move immediately to cancel any further broadcast through government facilities of his venom.
There is no excuse for the US Government, in any capacity, giving this man an audience.
It is an insult to the honorable men and women who serve this nation.
The people in our military services do not need the hateful evil of that man on their radio.
“Irreverence is the champion of liberty, and its only sure defense.” – Mark Twain - 1888
Blog Archive
About Me
- Dave Dubya
- History will not judge us kindly if we as a nation fail to defend and promote democracy. I am an old-fashioned American citizen who believes in our traditional values of freedom, truth, and justice. When I see our laws and government subverted and twisted into service of the undemocratic, powerful, corporate oligarchy, I must react with a patriotic defense of our values. I strongly oppose the ongoing destruction of what is left of American democracy and shall give voice to our common cause of freedom. I invite you to share my thoughts. I also welcome your comments, be they contradictory, corrective, or complimentary. Only one comment and response will be allowed for anonymous trolls. Repeated, unidentified, and off-topic trolling will be deleted as spam.
Posts
103 comments:
Thanks, Dave, I gladly signed.
The reich-wing hate-machine keeps spewing its filth and demagoguery, doesn't it? From its mouth-pieces, to its presidential aspirants, it never stops. The hate is what creates the semblance of a soul for its following. Without it, I sometimes wonder whether they'd even exist.
Got to admit seeing so many of Limbaugh's sponsors jump ship just about made my weekend. Now before some moronic conservative blowhard starts whining I know Limbaugh will survive this hit.
But nothing will take away from the fact after so many years of his hate speech a young lady made him her bitch.
No time to even read the article at the moment, but I want to subscribe.
The only thing you even came close to getting right, Dubya, was that corporations have spoken up, which is the way the process works. After that you regress into your typical far-left wacko nonsense.
”…he demeans our President. He has regularly demeaned women.” – Really? How many of you demeaned President Bush during his term, and even still are doing it? Come on now, be honest for a change. How many of you have demeaned Sarah Palin and other conservative women?
You rant about hate-mongering from the right, while ignoring the venomous hate spewing from the left. Why didn’t you defend Gov. Sarah Palin when Bill Maher called her a “C**T”??? Where was the outrage from the left? There was none. No one on the left had the guts to tell Bill Maher he was way out of line. People on the right, many of them, are telling Rush he was out of line.
And that is one major difference between the left and the right. The conservatives are willing to step up and correct others on the right, the left does not do the same on its side. The left does not understand concepts such as taking responsibility for your own actions.
“The people in our military services do not need the hateful evil of that man on their radio.” -- But apparently the hateful evil from the left is acceptable, right?
You lefties are such a bunch of hypocrites.
Dave
good write on so many levels.
I also signed the petition.
F & B, you wrote...
"How many of you demeaned President Bush during his term, and even still are doing it? Come on now, be honest for a change. How many of you have demeaned Sarah Palin and other conservative women?"
People who enter politics, or any public or celebrity life for that matter, are open targets to ridicule. It goes with the territory. As a matter of fact, it's expected. However, this particular instance was, and is, very different. The woman who was slandered, and probably libeled, was not, and is not, considered to be in the "public eye". She's only a common and ordinary citizen.
If I'm not mistaken, she's attending Georgetown law school. Hopefully she's already received excellent legal advice, has selected a top-tier Washington legal firm, and is preparing to sue the lard-ass for both libel and slander, in addition to defamation of character. I wish her a big payday!
As soon as she stepped up to that microphone and began talking she entered "the public eye".
Your hatred of that which you fear blinds you to the reality of this situation in comparison to Sarah Palin's. Even when confronted with the truth you flee from it, rather than admitting that anyone on your side has done wrong.
No one is perfect. No one.
Look into your latest little leftie liberal poster-child and you'll find that Ms. Fluke is no stranger to the public eye, or stirring up controversy. She was hand-picked by Pelosi to testify exactly as it was scripted for her.
Hypocrites.
F & B, you replied with...
"As soon as she stepped up to that microphone and began talking she entered 'the public eye'."
Is this a legal or personal opinion?
"Your hatred of that which you fear blinds you to the reality of this situation in comparison to Sarah Palin's."
I have no hatred of Sarah Palin. I challenge you to find, anywhere, where I've personally defiled or insulted her. And, as previously mentioned, politicians and people "of celebrity" are fair game. It's always been that way.
"Even when confronted with the truth you flee from it, rather than admitting that anyone on your side has done wrong."
Please...show me evidence that I've personally "fled".
As far as criticizing someone "on my side", I've been one of the biggest critics of this president and his administration -- something I never find from the trolls who haunt this and other leftward-leaning blogs that I frequent, when speaking of Bush's nightmarish eight years, or the obstructionist congress.
"No one is perfect. No one."
Although, the Right will lead everybody to believe they are...
Like I said, I wish for a huge payday for Ms. Fluke. She deserves it.
One simple fact was lost on Limbaugh and his drones: Sandra Fluke's speech was about the MEDICAL -- i.e. NOT contraception -- uses of the birth control pill. The pill is used for many medical purposes; Google it if you don't believe me.
Unfortunately her speech contained too many big words. It's much easier for right-tards to just skim off the simplest words and go "Ugh!!! Birth control! Sex! Slut! Ha ha ha ha."
JG,
As we know the radical Right needs to appeal to fear, hate, anger, resentment and other negative emotions, and never to compassion, reason or fact.
BB,
I hope to live to see the day when Limbaugh declines into irrelevance. This incident will surely decrease his number of listeners.
HR,
Thanks. Google seems inclined to “fix” what isn’t broken. These irritating new captcha letters are another example.
F&B,
Speaking of hate, why do you pile on and blame the victim of Limbaugh’s venomous slander? Are you also incapable of saying Limbaugh was hateful, rude and crude? Do you agree with him?
Maybe this is what you also agree with:
LIMBAUGH: So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.
As with your groundless accusations about far left wacko nonsense, I see nothing reflecting reality in your words, and no error in mine. Please enlighten us.
What did Maher call Palin? Show us please. I think this is another of your lies.
Ms. Fluke is no stranger to the public eye, or stirring up controversy
Once again, a groundless accusation or outright lie.
I don’t know anyone, other than Limbaugh, who demeaned the president on Armed Forces Radio. Do You? When have I ever called any woman what Limbaugh has?
Put up or shut up, please.
If you can’t show us anything reality based, we may have to assume you’re simply another indoctrinated authoritarian true believer, aka dittohead.
Okjimm,
Thanks for signing.
Tom,
The radical Right refuses to acknowledge the issue as relating to medicine. Pregnancy and reproductive issues are in the realm of medicine. The authoritarian Theocrats insist it is all about a “War on religion”, even though not one singe person’s faith, or expression of faith, is affected. Offended, yes, but they are always offended by something, aren’t they?
WOW I cant beleive that I am reading JG and DD agreeing with something corporations have done.
I think Limbaugh was wrong to say what he said about Fluke. He unnecessarily leveled personal attacks when there is a perfectly valid argument over limited goverment. Generally, it's the left that resorts to personal attacks, and we on the right don't need to sink to that level.
Dave, I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with the left's own misogyny. You really should read more across the political spectrum. I'm sure FandB doesn't need me to come to his defense, but here are some examples from a piece by Kirsten Powers:
Ed Shultz called Sarah Palin a bimbo and Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut."
Keith Olbermann said S.E.Cupp should have been aborted by her parents.
Chris Matthews has called Hillary Clinton a she-devil, Nurse Ratched, witchy, and uppity. He called Michele Bachmann a balloon head.
Bill Maher called Palin a dumb twat and "the C-word." He joked about Michelle Obama using a vibrator... oh wait, that was Rick Santorum's wife.
I'm not trying to win with more examples from the left. I'm not playing tit for tat. You asked for examples, and now I expect you and your cohort to explain away or ignore every single one of them.
Instead, how 'bout this: Let's not pretend it's only the right wing or Rush Limbaugh that resorts to these kinds of attacks.
HR,
I respect you for admitting Limbaugh was wrong and unfair. Too bad Republican politicians are unable to do so as well. I think the strongest condemnation was Boehner's saying it was “inappropriate”.
As George Will said in his quaint aristocratic manner, “Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff. And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
I won't defend, and indeed denounce, misogynistic comments from both sides.
As we know Schultz not only apologized but accepted a suspension. Compare Limbaugh’s and Schultz’s apologies.
I am unfamiliar with Olbermann’s and Matthews’ comments, but they are inconsiderate, if not mean-spirited, to say the least.
Again, neither you nor F&B have shown us the dreaded “C” word you accuse Maher of using against Palin.
I also don’t think it’s fair to compare comments about politicians and media figures to the same treatment of a private person by a public figure.
This is a false equivalency. They don’t have the megaphone, or influence, to respond, do they? It is bullying.
Generally, it's the left that resorts to personal attacks
Right.
Generally you don’t listen to talk radio and FOX(R), then, do you?
FOX(R) paid how many millions to Beck after he called Obama a “racist with a deep seated hatred for white people”?
"I also don’t think it’s fair to compare comments about politicians and media figures to the same treatment of a private person by a public figure."
I agree with this, as far as it goes. The only thing I'll quibble with is that Fluke is a private person. She put herself in the public eye with her testimony and her repeated television appearances.
"Again, neither you nor F&B have shown us the dreaded “C” word you accuse Maher of using against Palin."
I don't know first hand; taking Powers's word for it. I did a quick Google search and you wouldn't believe the websites that came up on my monitor when I entered the c-word.
Why don't we let that "C" word rest, since we have no evidence of that accusation being correct? Agreed?
As to your quibble. Being in the "public eye" does not equate with being a politician or media figure. Crime victims are in the public eye, and that does not excuse others to blame them. And it does not excuse the radical Right for blaming Ms. Fluke.
She was a private person exercising her right to speak to power in a democracy. She was neither a politician nor a public official. She was certainly not a media figure.
And she spoke the truth on behalf of many women. That was her crime, in the eyes of the theocrats and autocrats of the radical Right.
The reality is Limbaugh put her in the "public eye", in a negative and cruel manner, more than her appearance before a few representatives did.
Few would have heard of her if not for Limbaugh.
Your effort to portray her as a fair target for personal attack by an influential public media figure fits the pattern of blaming the victim.
And let’s ask why again. It is for telling the truth on behalf of many women. The truth that was shut out of the all-male theocratic authoritarian GOP panel that unilaterally decided contraception was a religious issue open only to men, and not a women’s health issue.
FandB is right.
The conservatives are only being shitty rotten people, because they are competing with the left. Some people on the left have said some bad things. And so conservatives have to say worse things.
The Official Conservative Spokesman, Rush Limbaugh said these things on behalf of all conservatives, because it's his duty to do so.
He's a product of the liberal establishment, as they pushed him to do this. He's not responsible for what he says or does.
As a staunch supporter of Rush Limbaugh's words and actions, FandB provides a valuable service in being his defender here. We should all appreciate his efforts.
It's good to see that on other conservative blogs, support for Rush Limbaugh has and his words have been going strong. It helps the world to better understand the conservative viewpoint, and the strong support Rush is receiving from the conservative community, does a lot to help us see how they think.
It's nice to know that anyone who uses birth control, condoms, IUDs, birth control pills, patches, etc... Is a prostitute.
And clearly conservatives don't use condoms. As this is also a means of preventing the spread of HIV, I have to wonder why conservatives are so vehement about eliminating funding for it's treatment.
Here's a liberal saying terrible things about conservatives.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/jon-stewart-rush-limbaugh-video_n_1323455.html
What's missing in this discussion is that Limbaugh not only used hateful language, he flatout lied. He launched a very personal attack on Ms. Fluke, calling her a slut and saying she was engaging in promiscuous sex, when her testimony was never about her own life. She cited examples of other people she knew whose medical conditions required the use of synthetic hormones -- medications prescribed by a physician -- that coincidentally are used as contraceptives. Ms. Fluke gave the example of a student who developed an ovarian cyst because the care she needed was not covered by the health insurance the university had required her to buy; numerous other medical conditions can require the use of synthetic hormones: dysmenorrhea (painful menses), excessively heavy periods, amenorrhea (no periods at all). To assume that the one and only use of oral contraceptives is to allow women to engage in orgiastic sexual activity just illustrates how ignorant Mr. Limbaugh is of how contraceptive drugs actually work. He apparently believes The Pill is like Viagra -- you only pop one when you're about to do the deed.
Even worse, he displayed appalling ignorance about an issue dear to the heart of the conservatives: consumer choice. Georgetown University requires students to pay approximately $5,000 per year for health insurance. This isn't optional; they must buy it. That insurance, however, does not cover preventive health care for women. And, despite all the hoopla about sex and contraception, anyone who knows anything at all about female anatomy and women's health also knows that oral contraceptives are prescribed for many reasons other than preventing pregnancy. If the health insurance does not cover care that women routinely need, shouldn't they at least have the option of not getting that insurance at all and shopping around for a different plan elsewhere?
I'll use the "c" word in regards to this chick. Last I knew her law school was being paid for via government grants (tax dollars) that she did what to earn exactly? Now, in addition to being forced to pay for her education I have to foot the bill for her birth control pills so she can get laid risk free to boot? Fuck that cunt. Get a job.
Good point Free0352.
Folks like you who have never attended a public or private school (private schools receive public monies too), understand that education isn't necessary in the USA.
Free0352 has done just fine without using any facility that is government subsidized, like schools and roads.
And he never uses condoms, because he's not a birth control prostitute.
Thankfully, because the internet is federally subsidized, only government subsidized whore prostitutes use it. That's why Free0352 isn't really here.
He's not a socialist or a government subsidized whore prostitute, so you'd never catch him using a socialistic government funded service, like the internet.
First, I never defended Rush Limbaugh in this matter, but if you think I did, show me where.
I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy from the left. The bottom line is that this feigned 'outrage' is not about what Rush said, it is about who said it.
And the larger issue here is not about contraceptives and abortifacients. It is not about the morality of abortion or the lack thereof. It is about Freedom of Religion, and the First Amendment, and whether the government has the right to dictate religious, ethical, moral policy to a church and its humanitarian enterprises.
The worst part is that the lefties among us are willing to forsake the First Amendment if it means scoring points against the right. As soon as WE THE PEOPLE allow ANYONE to trample on the First Amendment rights of others, no matter which side of the aisle they are on, WE no longer have a First Amendment or the Rights that it represents.
Today the Catholic Faith is under attack by the government. Tomorrow it could be, and eventually will be your religion and your First Amendment rights.
”…he demeans our President. He has regularly demeaned women.” – Really? How many of you demeaned President Bush during his term, and even still are doing it? Come on now, be honest for a change. How many of you have demeaned Sarah Palin and other conservative women?"
Really. This commenter is placing blogger who have what, 5, 10, 20 commenters? on the same level as Limbaugh whose listening audience is anywhere from 10 to 20 million? No one seems to know the exact number. And this commenter compares us bloggers to a guy who speaks at GOP conferences and had the admiration and support of GWB and Dick Cheney?
Really? We have the same influence as that?
Well, of course we don't and the comparison is ludicrous. Limbaugh has walked among the rich and powerful in this country for years and GOP pols are afraid of him. Ha! A guy with a radio talk show. As George Will said, GOP pols want to attack Iran but are afraid of Rush Limbaugh?
Limbaugh has been a cad all his professional life from the time he told an African American caller to "take the bone out of his nose," to publicly humiliating 12-year old Chelsea Clinton on his short-lived teevee show when he compared her looks to a dog, to making fun of Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease, to this 3-day orgy of vitriolic slime against Ms. Fluke.
There is no one on the Left who compares in political influence, wealth and political power with Rush. Not Olbermann, not Schultz, not Maher--who's on pay cable station, not on public air waves like Rush. No one.
The conservatives who defend Rush defend a cowardly bully. And they are woefully on the wrong side of this very explosive issue.
When he called Ms. Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" for talking about contraceptive coverage, he insulted all women.
You're right FandB.
If the Catholic Church doesn't have the power to decide for us, what medications people are allowed to take, to treat their medical conditions, like ovarian cysts, then what freedom do we have?
The Church is in the business of telling us what we can and cannot do. If they are not free to define and limit our freedoms, then how can any of us be free?
LOL I have to prove that you're defending Rush, while you defend Rush?!
FandB is it safe to assume that the reason that you want to give the Catholic Church the power to limit our freedoms, is because you are a Catholic?
Found this on "Crooks and Liars:"
"For his part, Limbaugh seems to have learned little from the controversy that has cost him at least 26 advertisers.
'What is it with all these young, single, white women?' the conservative icon ranted during his show on Tuesday. 'Overeducated doesn’t mean intelligent!' "
The poor slob cain't hep himself.
Keep insulting the nation's young women, El Rushbo, and see where it gets you and the GOP.
Randi Rhodes brought out an interesting detail yesterday that I hadn't heard before, one that makes what Limbaugh did to Sandra Fluke even more outrageous and inexcusable. Georgetown U. requires students to buy comprehensive medical insurance that includes birth control coverage. It's not a matter of choice.
Limbaugh is a bully with a microphone. He has a platform of influence he could've used all these years to promote good, positive things in this life and this country. That kind of thing doesn't bring him satisfaction, though. He likes wielding power with his malignant attitude and ugly mouth, sliming people who are trying to make this life and country fairer and better for all. None of that is surprising. He's a sociopath, pure and simple.
What is surprising and disturbing is that there is such a big audience for Limbaugh's hate-filled, hateful spew. Without them, he would be nothing.
Good for the businesses, I think it's up to eight or nine now, that have pulled their advertising. Limbaugh and Clear Channel have neither scruples nor conscience. Some business decision makers do. One told Lawrence O'
Donnell he was quitting Limbaugh because he has daughters Fluke's age.
"Keep insulting the nation's young women, El Rushbo, and see where it gets you and the GOP."
I heard last night one place it's gotten Romney, who endorsed Limbaugh's lame "apology." Obama 49 percent, Romney 37 percent.
Rush is doing a fine job of helping Obama get re-elected.
FandB, ask your Mom if she's ever used any form of birth control. I'll bet the answer is yes. Tell her what you think of her for it.
Wease,
Good to see you. Hope all is well with you and yours.
Their message is easy to understand. Everyone using birth control, except for them, is a slut and sex addict.
Speaking of Oxy-Morons, have you noticed the “compassionate conservatives’” sense of outrage over the emotional abuse of a young girl by dittohead cruelty?
Nan,
Limbaugh lies?? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you. Limbaugh only “apologized” for “two words”. The jerk called Fluke a femi-nazi sex addict too. That shows how sincere his “apology” was.
You are correct. Where would the radical Right be without their ignorance, hate and lies? It’s who they are.
Shaw,
Yes, Limbaugh is exactly that, a coward, bully and a liar.
Just wait, when Obama is reelected, the extremists will wig out, of course, and blame the “liberal media” for it. They’ll forget all about the hate, ignorance, arrogance and stupidity shown by their Right Wing leaders.
SW,
The extremists don’t care for truth. In fact, their hatred for Fluke is their reaction to her telling the truth.
This reinforces my contention that the radical Right must regard science, education, and journalism as evil forms of liberalism. Reality, whether climate change, evolution, or medicine, often contradicts their dogma. Therefore, anything dedicated to studying, teaching, investigating and reporting truth is seen as a threat to them. They hate what they cannot control. This is also why they hate us.
I honestly think they hate America, since they seem to hate most Americans. They oppose democracy wherever possible and refuse to compromise with the majority. If they cannot control it, they will undermine, privatize, and dismantle every public service and vestige of democracy they get their hands on.
I have to admit that I got into the hate speech arguments, primarily on Fair and Unbalanced and one other site that I don't even remember now.
It did annoy me how the left kept accusing the right of hate speech, while spewing hate speech. It annoyed me so much that I lost a debate defending the GOP.
I researched to try to find the same level of hate from influential people, such as Matthews and Maddow, as were being cited by Beck and Limbaugh and others. It was after the AZ shooting.
I was so utterly defeated that I just gave up.
I will defend republicans when they are being falsely accused. I will not engage in defending them on the "hate speech" question again, because I don't like losing debates.
I will say that both sides do it, and neither side is too good to do it, so it is a bit hypocritical for one side to list it as an attribute of the other side. However, I will never again say that it is equal on each side. It was one of the handful of debates I have had online where I simply conceded defeat.
John,
“The only thing to hate is hate itself”.
Conservatives hate. Liberals hate. Hate is a contagious. Even moderates hate.
Humans are very susceptible to outbreaks. Some hate more than others. Where there’s more the anger, fear, resentment and misunderstanding, there’s more hate. We notice how fascists are more generally known for hate than socialists are.
As a human I am susceptible to hate. I try not to hate any person, difficult as it may be. Hate is a strong, negative, angry, and intensely emotional reaction to what we may misunderstand, or fear, or feel is a threat. Hate soon becomes self destructive to the hater. It drains thought, emotion, time and energy from us. It denies us positive use of our energies.
If I have to hate, I try to hate the hate, and not the hater.
Let me be clear FandB.
You have worked hard on this blog to prove to me that you are a completely despicable person.
That seems to have been your mission.
And you've tried hard to prove that all conservatives are just pieces of shit.
For my part, I admit, you've proven your point.
If I knew you were coming to my house, I'd have a firearm ready. Because I don't think you're mentally stable.
You're pathetic Weaseldog.
All you have done is lie about what I said.
You can't engage in an intelligent discussion. You are not capable of doing so. So your whole schtick is lying about what others have said. It's the only tool you have in your toolbox.
Sad, really. I pity you.
And the saddest part of all is that in spite of the fact that my mother died under vary tragic circumstances at a very young age, you still can't stop yourself from including her in your hateful fictional tirade. Leave her out of it.
Compared to you, you don't have room to call anyone else hateful, not Rush, not anyone. And you especially don't have room to call anyone else despicable or mentally unstable. You take the cake on those as well.
I would say that you should stop misrepresenting what others say, well, in your case, flat out lying about what others say, because it is beneath you. But obviously, it isn't.
I'm sure you meant the best FandB, when you essentially called all women whores and prostitutes.
Because you did that, you see yourself as a good person, and because I don't like, it, you see me as a bad person.
I'm ok with that.
I don't know that I can trust what you say about your mom. Considering your hatred of women, I'm not sure what to think of it.
Weasel, I thought I must have missed something, so I scrolled back to the top to read all of FandB's comments and see where he called women who use contraceptives whores and prostitutes. I missed it.
Can you point me to the comment you keep bringing up in your accusations? Or are you pulling the same crap Democrats are by saying the Republicans are against women's rights want to ban contraceptives?
You know, both of those things are false. Even if a Democrat says it on the House floor, it's false. Republicans don't want to ban contraceptives. No Republican has introduced a bill to curb women's rights.
Please Weaseldog, stop the hate.
FandB, when I first started commenting here, you jumped on me with vicious attacks without cause.
You wanted me to know what kind of person you are, and to let me know that I should always be on the offensive with you.
We both know that because you're essentially a bully, that if I show weakness, you'll just attack again.
Play the victim card all you want. I'm not going to fall for it.
No Republican has introduced a bill to curb women's rights.
If being sent to be probed against one's wishes doesn't curb one's rights, I suppose.
I wonder how many women would agree with this...
as they are sent to have a government mandated ultrasound.
Dave, let's be perfectly clear. You say, "If being sent to be probed against one's wishes doesn't curb one's rights, I suppose."
Hopefully we can agree that this law (which hasn't passed) doesn't prevent a woman from getting an abortion. It simply creates a stipulation before getting an abortion. I'm not defending the law -- I disagree with it -- but let's be clear that this law doesn't outlaw abortion.
So, if you think this stipulation is the equivalent of curbing a woman's right (which you just said), I assume you're logically consistent with other health care stipulations placed by government, right? Like those around requiring the purchase of health insurance, or carriers to provide free contraception. And you know I could provide additional examples because the federal government places lots of stipulations on anything that's federally funded.
You see, you're falling into the same old trap where you love the stipulations you agree with, and the ones you disagree with are a violation of someone's rights. Which, of course, is a lie and a talking point. Republicans don't oppose contraception. We don't want to ban it. That's a lie.
You'd be much better off as a conservative because you'd recognize that the government has a very limited role, at least constitutionally. Once you start playing this game where government intrudes on our lives (and exceeds it role), you sound foolish to complain about your ideological opponents intruding. It borders on hypocrisy.
HR,
I made a valid point against your claim, and you share my disagreement with the “stipulation” that curbs women’s rights. You and I have the right to refuse unwanted and unneeded medical procedures. So why should women have that right curbed?
What is “logically consistent” with your straw man and red herring? Nobody here said the probe/ultrasound “stipulation” outlaws abortion. Nobody here argues Republicans want to ban contraception.
Just for the record, I don’t like the health insurance mandate. I dislike much of the corporate-written health care law drafted by corporate-owned politicians. Yes, insurance companies were “at the table”.
Are you talking about “free contraception” for the purchasers of insurance? Then it’s not exactly free, is it? How is it a bad thing otherwise? It saves money, prevents abortions, and treats medical problems.
Most Republicans are all about curbing a woman’s reproductive rights. They say they want “small” government”, yet demand one invasive enough to monitor, and dictate what happens to, women’s bodies. That not only borders on hypocrisy, it crosses the line. Women either have equal rights as men, or they don’t. We know where the Republicans stand.
More hypocrisy flourishes when “small government” proponents demand drug tests without suspicion, and a continuation of the failed war on drugs. Why should what someone does with their own body be the government’s business, anyway?
education isn't necessary in the USA.
Maybe or maybe not, but what isn't good for me is having my tax dollars fund this woman's education, let alone her birth control pills. I did attend college, and paid for it with four fun filled years in the military. So I did something to earn that. What did this chick do except be annoying?
As for birth control, condoms are a buck a piece. If you can't afford 1.00 dollar you don't need to be having sex anyway. As for the pill, same deal. If I can't afford hockey pads I shouldn't play hockey, not expect my neighbor to buy me the gear.
First, what Limbaugh said was foolish and wrong.
That said, Ms. Fluke was attending a CATHOLIC University that she knew was not offering birth control coverage in its required health insurance, and yet chose to go there anyway. If it was that big of an issue for her, you would think she would have chosen a different school or found a way to fund this need herself. I would submit to you that she knew exactly what she was doing and has become the darling of the left for doing so.
The pill, for whatever the reason it is used, is not that expensive. The disingenuousness from the left characterizing free contraception as a woman's health issue is an asinine lie accordingly, albeit it is a masterful piece of political jujitsu. I could understand if maybe we were discussing mandating free mammograms or pap smears as a woman's health issue, but this is simply an assault on the First Amendment, just like FandB said. It is ironic that truly related women’s health care issues like those I just mentioned would help find early cancers or prevent them from spreading, while instead President Obama insists on providing “free” birth control pills which have actually been shown in clinical studies to increase the likelihood of breast cancer in women. I guess that is the price some women have to pay though, according to the left. I guess they think that risk is better than being “punished with a baby”.
I don’t know why I should be surprised that most folks don't care what the Constitution says regarding our first amendment rights. Members of both parties, but particularly under this administration, have thoroughly trashed the supreme law of the land. Let alone the fact that this “law” clearly and unambiguously goes against one of the core tenets of the faith regarding the sanctity of life as professed by the Catholic Church and refuses to let the Church care for the moral well-being of parishioners as it chooses in violation of that first amendment right, I don’t understand why folks once again aren’t ticked that the federal government is AGAIN telling private companies what services or products they must provide. (And for “free” no less!) Please tell me under what authority the federal government can again dictate to a private company what service it must provide and what it must charge for that service.
Dubya stated, “I honestly think they hate America, since they seem to hate most Americans. They oppose democracy wherever possible and refuse to compromise with the majority. If they cannot control it, they will undermine, privatize, and dismantle every public service and vestige of democracy they get their hands on.”
Dubya, in the months I have been gone nothing has changed on your blog, including the fact that you are still blind to the very things you rail against on the right that are being done by your political fellow travelers on the left. Yes, Democracy is vital, but not at the expense and tyranny over the minority when their constitutional rights are being violated. It is the left in the guise of Democrats like NC Governor Perdue that have suggested suspending congressional elections in order for congress to “focus on the economy without worrying about having to campaign for re-election” that are the true enemies of Democracy. I guess she, and all of the retiring Democratic Senators and Congressmen, can see where this forth-coming general election is likely heading. She and the Democrats are the one that are wanting to curb Democracy. It is the left that tries to push laws through activist courts because they cannot get their legislation passed at the ballot box. I would submit that it is the left that is the greater enemy of Democracy than is the right. I agree with you, Dubya, that we must follow the will of the people through the process of our representative republic, but NOT when the majority wants to usurp rights protected under the Constitution. I know it doesn’t matter to a lot of people right now, but eventually a Constitutional right you DO care about will similarly come under fire if this is allowed to stand. This issue, instead of being wrongly and foolishly characterized as a “women’s health issue” really is about our constitutional rights; something I know you do care about, my friend.
By the way, here is a link to Bill Maher’s hate speech: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_thread/thread/2e827b8c47b450af/0ffe94c859f8f1e3?lnk=raot&pli=1
TP:
How nice to see you.
First, what Limbaugh said was foolish and wrong.
I see. Maybe you agree with Boehner saying it was “inappropriate”. Foolish and wrong being sort of like:
This issue, instead of being wrongly and foolishly characterized as a “women’s health issue” really is about our constitutional rights;
So Rush was no more out of line than Ms. Fluke? This, sir, is a glaring false equivalency. She spoke the truth. He insulted her and lied about her.
Limbaugh is foolish and wrong every day. Regarding Ms. Fluke he was hateful and dishonest. He called a private person a “slut, prostitute, femi-nazi and sex addict”. All on public airwaves that children could have been hearing.
Yet you see equal wrongness and foolishness between advocating and defending the use of birth control drugs as medication for serious gynecological conditions, and Limbaugh’s hate?
Perhaps you may wish to reconsider your choice of words characterizing the two as equal.
I’ve yet to hear any recording of Maher using the “c” word for Palin. If he did so, it was in his own show that people paid to see. He has a history of saying outrageous and misogynistic words. But face it. Unlike Limbaugh, he really is an entertainer. He is a comedian. He makes his living doing comedy and political satire. Rush makes a living lying and telling us who to hate.
I don’t condone any misogynistic hate from anyone, but Maher has the right to say anything he wants in his act. He has his First Amendment rights, too.
Unlike Limbaugh’s hate it was not foisted on the public airwaves and directed at a private person, was it? Limbaugh is a propagandist for the Right, and never calls Republicans “pussies” like Maher called Democrats; although Republicans’ obsequious refusal to condemn his hate does characterize them as such.
False equivalencies abound in such comparisons. Nothing said by anyone mitigates the hate Limbaugh spewed. I’m sorry you seem to share a bit of that disrespect for women.
contraception as a woman's health issue is an asinine lie
Right, and pregnancy and other gynecological conditions are not medical issues. How absurd.
Only ideologues, religious fanatics, and the ignorant believe this falsehood. You, Limbaugh, and the howlers on the Right have no idea what Ms. Fluke was talking about. She spoke of serious medical conditions that required treatment by drugs also used for contraception. For that she was called a “slut, prostitute, femi-nazi and sex addict”. The girl in the linked article was also subjected to similar hate for a medical condition.
Not one of you Righties seemed bothered by that. Why? Yet you wonder why we think you disrespect women. Conservative “compassion” seems reserved primarily for other men, especially wealthy ones, and zygotes.
You complain the law “refuses to let the Church care for the moral well-being of parishioners as it chooses”.
Where? Where does it intercede between the Church and the parishioners?
I dare you to show me one Catholic who’s right to worship freely has been curtailed. I dare you to show me any church forced to provide contraception. If you can, then I would agree that there is a real infringement on those First Amendment rights we cherish.
The students, not the Church, pay for the health insurance. It is not “free”. The insurance company, not the Church, provides the contraception. Bottom line.
Your pontification on democracy ignores the real ideology of the Right. They want minority rule over the majority. They want government control of women’s bodies. They are nothing but “Golden Rulers” insisting those with the power and wealth rule over the rest of us.
There is the ultimate bottom line, my friend.
I dare you to show me one Catholic who’s right to worship freely has been curtailed.
Every Catholic who is going to have to help fund birth control. I have no idea how many that is. What, millions?
What's next? Are we going to force the Amish to go to all 12 grades of school and start making Adventists register for the draft, and not allow Islamic women the right to wear a burka? Make Christian Scientists go to the hospital? I mean as long as your definition of religious freedom is simply the privilege to go to church, why stop there? You logic opens up a fun can of worms. We can now force Muslims and Jews to eat pork (Muslims in prison for example as you know get a special diet pork free... NO MORE!), draft Quakers, and make the Amish go to public school. And who knows what other fun little unknown consequences this precedent will cause. Basically, fuck your religion and fuck the 1st Amendment. Then again, you guys were never very down with the Constitution anyway.
Dubya, first let me rephrase my condemnation statement towards Limbaugh. What he said was categorically and unequivocally wrong. It was stupid, unnecessary, and hateful. There! Are you happy now, sir?
As for Ms. Fluke, I did not in any way intend to suggest that what she said was “hateful” or on the caliber of Limbaugh’s idiotic statements towards her. Rather, I was pointing out that her feigned “innocence and naivety” regarding her contraception issue while attending a Catholic University strikes me as a little contrived for someone of her obvious intelligence.
First of all, why in the hell should anyone expect “free” anything from anybody? This entitlement mindset really has become a cancer on our society that has especially been propagated by progressives.
That said, after you immediately move to accusing me of moral equivalency,you go on to mitigate hateful speech from the disgusting and vile Bill Maher. Who is the one with the moral equivalency issue, Dave? Yes, Limbaugh’s radio show is broadcasted on public airwaves; however, you and everyone else is free to change the station. Nobody is making anybody listen to him. As for Maher, the fact that people pay money to listen to his vile “humor” suggests to me of a lack of judgment and an excess of disposable income that the Democrats evidently overlooked in taxing from these folks. And characterizing Maher as a “comedian” to excuse his grotesque political speech, while he then turns around and donates $1 million to the Obama campaign, hardly justifies his behavior. He is as much of a political satirist as Limbaugh is. The difference is that Maher is always over-the-top rude and hateful and only has a fraction of a percent of the audience and influence that Limbaugh does… THANK God!
They both have a first amendment right to say what they did, but unlike you, I condemn both of their speeches for the hatefulness of them.
Why cannot the left condemn such hateful speech from wherever it emanates, even when it is spewed from someone on their “team”? I wish both sides would do so consistently. Unfortunately it is exceptionally rare to hear a leftist ever condemn such speech from one of their own.
That said, I choose to ignore your silly and completely unfounded accusation of my having “disrespect for women”.
“… pregnancy and other gynecological conditions are not medical issues. How absurd.”
Come on, Dave. You are being disingenuous here. You know damned well that the whole contraception debate does not stem from a desire to treat gynecological issues, except as a very peripheral aside to the debate. It is about expanding an entitlement and forcing institutions which have moral or religious objections to provide contraception in violation of their constitutional rights in order for Obama to further galvanize his base.
“Where does it intercede between the Church and the parishioners?” Really? You are a very sharp guy. I cannot believe that you are failing to see the simple logic of this argument. Let me spell it out as simply as possible. The government is mandating that the church provide insurance which includes contraception, sterilizations, and abortifacients which are all contrary to core tenets of the faith to employees/parishioners of their institutions. After the outcry, the government stupidly says that they will compromise. The church still must purchase insurance that provides all of those things to which they object, but the insurance company cannot “charge” them for it. The bottom line is that both pre and post compromise, the church is forced to purchase insurance which provides these things that are contrary to their teachings. I would call that interceding. The fact that this is expressly forbidden in the first amendment makes it even more egregious. The further fact that nobody on the left cares saddens me, but doesn’t surprise me.
Your shell game of saying that the “students” and not the church pay for the insurance is ridiculous. Even if that were true, it doesn’t matter who pays. The fact that the Church is being told by law that they must provide a product/service with which it disagrees, even through an intermediary, is a violation of our most basic constitutional rights. This becomes especially egregious with certain Catholic institutions because they are self insurers.
Your and the Obama administration’s logic of having removed “responsibility” from the church by making the insurance companies pay for it is akin to the person that hired the hit man to kill someone claiming that they don’t have any responsibility in the murder. After all, they aren’t the ones that actually committed the act.
“I dare you to show me any church forced to provide contraception. If you can, then I would agree that there is a real infringement on those First Amendment rights we cherish.” I just did. I explained how this law would theoretically do just that, if allowed to be fully enacted. Unfortunately what will happen if this violation of constitutional law stands, is that the Catholic Church will not comply. It will simply no longer offer insurance to all of its employees, which I believe is really the ultimate aim of the Obama administration anyway. This forces all of these newly uninsured people to be corralled into forthcoming government insurance exchanges and gets us one step closer in the incremental process that Obama admitted was his goal of universal government health care. And freedom and health care costs be damned!
Ya know, I find it ironic how the leftist women are always claiming that they want the government to “stay out of their uterus's" when it comes to the abortion debate. Now, during this contraception debate, I guess they DO want the government in involved with their uterus's after all.
Dubya, you are way off the mark.
"They want minority rule over the majority." --> Absolutely a false statement. I defy you to produce evidence to support such an absurd statement. (Real evidence, not your typical "you hate Pelosi therefore you hate all women" type of BS "evidence" that pervades most of your arguments.) It is the regressive liberals who want minority rule over the majority.
"They want government control of women’s bodies." --> Again, an absolutely False statement. Conservatives believe the government should not have control over anyone's body. This includes the control the regressive liberal Obama regime is attempting to usurp over EVERYONE's bodies through the unconstitutional details of 'Obamacare'.
Your analysis of the Catholic Church's affiliated services, e.g. Catholic hospitals, is also factually incorrect. Catholic Churches would be forced to PAY for insurance for employees that would provide ABORTIFACIENTS at no cost to the insured. This violates the religious beliefs and conscience of many Catholics whose money would be used to pay the insurance premiums that could ultimately result in chemically induced abortions. Catholics have the God given right (because they were 'endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights' just like all other Americans) to practice their sacred religious beliefs, and the government has no right to try to take these away, or infringe upon them.
You are correct, however, that the government has not yet forced the Church to provide contraception. The law has not yet taken effect, the enforcement has been delayed for slightly over a year (it won't kick in until after the 2012 elections - coincidence?).
As the Catholic Bishops and Cardinals have already stated, we will not comply with this unjust law. So what remains to be seen is whether the government will attempt to fine Catholics for refusing to comply, and then whether they will attempt to imprison Catholics when they refuse to pay the fines - a clear violation of the First Amendment.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It will be interesting watching Obama reveal his true nature if and when he ends up in a direct confrontation with the Catholic Pope over the issue of contraceptives and abortion inducing chemicals.
Also, even though you attempt to paint Catholics as religious fanatics, nothing could be further from the truth. Catholics are very main stream in terms of religion. They typically tend to be moderately liberal. The church recognizes the importance of a sexual relationship as a part of marriage and in the emotional bonding of a husband and wife. The church even offers counseling and training in the effective use of natural birth control methods. They teach that people should refrain from using un-natural forms of birth control. However, in cases where the woman's health is involved, they allow treatment as necessary to protect the woman's health. This includes procedures such as tubal ligation for women who would be put at serious risk by a pregnancy.
As usual, much of the controversy is caused by a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's true positions on these issues, and the willful ignorance of the regressive liberals on these issues.
Dave Dubya, you accurately observed, something our conservative "brethren" purposely, or mistakenly, will not do. For example:
"I dare you to show me one Catholic who’s right to worship freely has been curtailed. I dare you to show me any church forced to provide contraception. If you can, then I would agree that there is a real infringement on those First Amendment rights we cherish."
So true. You see, our conservative friends fail to make the distinction between places of worship and businesses or institutions for profit. How convenient...and deceitful.
"The students, not the Church, pay for the health insurance. It is not 'free'. The insurance company, not the Church, provides the contraception. Bottom line."
Again, whether through ignorance or just plain deceitfulness, conservatives fail to make or admit there's a distinctive difference. Why is that? (Hint: Your statement below most probably answers this.)
"Your pontification on democracy ignores the real ideology of the Right."
I could care less if a woman uses the pill. Hell, my wife is on the pill. However, I don't expect anyone to pay for it. That is our responsibility. Who is government to force an insurance company to cover anything? Where is there right to tell insurance companies what they must pay for? It should be between the company and the customer. The left wants control of THAT relationship, much more so than any desire of the right to control a woman's body.
Heathen Republican: "Dave, let's be perfectly clear. You say, "If being sent to be probed against one's wishes doesn't curb one's rights, I suppose."
Hopefully we can agree that this law (which hasn't passed) doesn't prevent a woman from getting an abortion. It simply creates a stipulation before getting an abortion. I'm not defending the law -- I disagree with it -- but let's be clear that this law doesn't outlaw abortion."
Do you know that this state-forced penetration of girls' and women's vaginas IS the law in Texas?
There is no medical reason whatsoever for this forced penetration and probe. BTW, this forces health professionals to perform a procedure that is not medically necessary--it's not just girls and women who are affected.
This procedure has been sponsored and passed by GOP state legislators [other states besides Virginia have this legislation in the pipeline] who want to do everything in their power to discourage girls and women from having a legal medical procedure.
It is a direct assault on girls and women by the state and is shocking that anyone would support such a Medieval tactic on this segment of the population.
If the Puritans in the GOP are so opposed to abortions why do they oppose contraception coverage in insurance plans? Where's the logic in that?
Free,
Every Catholic who is going to have to help fund birth control.
Which is zero.
You didn’t show me one Catholic funding birth control, nor one whose First Amendment right to freely worship curtailed.
Who is government to force an insurance company to cover anything? Where is there right to tell insurance companies what they must pay for?
Fair questions.
Who is the Church to force an insurance company to not cover anything? When coverage is purchased by a private person, where is the Church’s right to tell insurance companies what they must not pay for?
TP,
Thank you for taking the leap. It was brave of you. Limbaugh is hateful. I also condemn Maher’s misogyny. What makes anyone here think I don’t?
They both have a first amendment right to say what they did, but unlike you, I condemn both of their speeches for the hatefulness of them.
I don’t have time to keep showing you what is already there. I clearly wrote:
I won't defend, and indeed denounce, misogynistic comments from both sides.
Please read what I wrote before you accuse me of something.
Admit it or not, Limbaugh’s hate was over public airwaves, and infinitely more likely to have been heard by children.
Once again. The students, not the Church, pay for the health insurance. It is not “free”. The insurance company, not the Church, provides the contraception. Bottom line.
Of course I’m, “characterizing Maher as a “comedian”. It may have something to do with the fact he makes a living doing comedy. You cannot deny that. You can only be offended.
Pregnancy and other gynecological conditions are medical issues, even the “peripheral” ones.
And freedom and health care costs be damned!
Hysteria and paranoia. Canadians have both lower health care costs and live in a free country.
F&B,
"They want minority rule over the majority."
Examples abound throughout my blog and in the corporate media. The majority wants Social Security, Medicare and progressive taxes on the rich. The GOP says to hell with the majority.
Conservatives believe the government should not have control over anyone's body. Again, examples to the contrary abound, even in this thread.
You are quite the Catholic yourself. I bet you and your partner used birth control, too. You won’t admit though.
It will be interesting watching Obama reveal his true nature if and when he ends up in a direct confrontation with the Catholic Pope
Yes, the Good Catholic is selectively offended once again. Where was your holy Churchiness when the Pope condemned Bush’s invasion of Iraq?
TP and F&B,
The hypocritical zygote worship makes a mockery of Right Wing approval, counter to the Church, of what led to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead Americans.
Was the Pope wrong? Was the Church wrong? Make up your mind or get off the pulpit.
Dubya: "I dare you to show me one Catholic who’s right to worship freely has been curtailed. I dare you to show me any church forced to provide contraception. If you can, then I would agree that there is a real infringement on those First Amendment rights we cherish."
Jeff’s Guardian: “So true. You see, our conservative friends fail to make the distinction between places of worship and businesses or institutions for profit. How convenient...and deceitful.”
T. Paine: Mr. Guardian, your ignorance is showing. Either that, or you are the one that is being intentionally deceitful, sir. The Catholic Church and many other houses of faith are not simply places where one heads off to pray on the Sabbath. Worship is more than just going to church and praying. It is part and parcel of living a faith. That is truly worship.
That said, those “businesses” you characterize as such are part of living that faith. They are part of loving our neighbor as Christ commanded us to do. Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Schools, and Catholic Hospitals are all a part of fulfilling that commandment. The amount of people helped through these institutions are practically innumerable. Further, certain of these Catholic run charities and organizations that help communities will often times be self-insuring. That means that they provide their own insurance to their employees. It is not done by hiring an outside insurance company. Now, by force of law, they will be required to offer abortifacients etc with that insurance.
Even if that was not the case, they are still being required, albeit through an intermediary, to offer a service which is absolutely contrary to a core tenet of the Catholic faith. Please tell me how that is NOT a violation of their right to worship? Please tell me how that is NOT a grotesque violation of the 1st amendment? The only way you can justify that is by defining worship simply as prayer. Such is NOT the case, my friend.
Dubya: "The students, not the Church, pay for the health insurance. It is not 'free'. The insurance company, not the Church, provides the contraception. Bottom line."
Jeff’s Guard: “Again, whether through ignorance or just plain deceitfulness, conservatives fail to make or admit there's a distinctive difference. Why is that?”
T. Paine: First, Dubya is wrong. The students pay part of the premium, but it is also subsidized (paid for, in other words) by the church. Even if the Church didn’t pay a cent of it, they are still providing the insurance service. Requiring them to provide components within that insurance with which they wholly disagree is wrong and anti-American, hence the reason the free exercise of religion clause was specifically codified in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Shaw: If the Puritans in the GOP are so opposed to abortions why do they oppose contraception coverage in insurance plans? Where's the logic in that?
T. Paine: Often times what is labeled as “contraception” is inaccurate. With many types of “contraceptives” conception actually does occur. An egg is fertilized and thus life is produced. The lining of the uterus is thinned though, so that life is aborted accordingly. These types of contraceptives are actually abortifacients. They CAUSE abortions.
Dubya: “Who is the Church to force an insurance company to not cover anything? When coverage is purchased by a private person, where is the Church’s right to tell insurance companies what they must not pay for?”
T. Paine: Wow! That is really stretching it there, Dave. The Church isn’t telling the insurance company to not cover something right now. Rather, the private insurance company is offering a product to a customer based on their free-market needs. They are catering to their customer. Now, our Dear Leader Obama has come in and inserted himself into that free market and told the producer what he must supply to the consumer, and furthermore that the consumer MUST accept that service. Yeah, that is really freedom and democracy at work, Dave.
Dubya: “Thank you for taking the leap. It was brave of you. Limbaugh is hateful. I also condemn Maher’s misogyny. What makes anyone here think I don’t?”
T. Paine: It is hardly brave to condemn hateful speech wherever it is found. It is what decent people should do. The reason why I questioned your condemnation of Maher was the fact that you started justifying and mitigating his abhorrent comments. Indeed, you accepted the fact that Rush said what he did through second hand sources without flinching. (Don’t even try to convince me that you listen to Rush and heard the statement for yourself.) The irony is that when others told you of Maher’s “C”-word episode, you didn’t believe it, even when I provided a link with the transcript. How come you are far more skeptical of such scummy statements from someone with whom you agree politically then from someone with whom you disagree and loathe?
Dubya: “Hysteria and paranoia. Canadians have both lower health care costs and live in a free country.”
T. Paine: Indeed. My main question is where are all of the rich Canadians now going to go for their health care once Obamacare is fully implemented and the subsequent degradation of our healthcare system occurs?
Dubya: “The hypocritical zygote worship makes a mockery of Right Wing approval, counter to the Church, of what led to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead Americans. Was the Pope wrong? Was the Church wrong? Make up your mind or get off the pulpit.”
T. Paine: Really nice… “zygote worship”? It does not matter whether you believe as I do. It is enough that I believe, as is my right… at least for a little while longer. You can choose to believe that life begins at conception or not. I don’t know what else you would call it besides life, as if left to take its natural course, an inarguable human being is eventually born. When else would you say that life actually begins, Dave, if not at conception? It seems to me that everything after that point is just some fabricated and arbitrary threshold that pro-abortionists use to justify the termination of that life as they deem necessary.
As for your non-sequitur to the Iraq war, I closely looked at the tenets of just war theory as proclaimed by the Catholic Church and felt in my own conscience that it passed that threshold. The Pope saw otherwise, and in retrospect, he may very well have been right. One of the main distinctions between the war and contraception/abortion to me is that fact that the protection of innocent and unborn life has been infallibly stated by the Church and many popes throughout the generations. The Pope at the time of the Iraq war spoke out against the war as a matter of what he saw as the conflict not meeting the threshold of Just War philosophy. He did not do so, however, speaking infallibly as head of the Church. Yes, these were his thoughts and he spoke for the Roman Catholic Church accordingly, but it was not an infallible statement of dogma such as has been proclaimed regarding abortion. And that is far more of a distinction than the silly argument made that insurance companies and not the church are providing abortifacients.
Dubya: "Examples abound throughout my blog . . ." = Meaningless. The GOP wants less government control, the liberals want more.
Just look at the law Obummer signed a couple of days ago. NO FREE SPEECH in 'Secret Service' controlled areas. I really can't believe the phony liberals are sitting still for this one, just because it comes from their god-king Odumbo. It is now a felony to exercise YOUR freedom of speech in any area where the secret service decides, and THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT! I warned you all, infringement on the First Amendment against Catholics would lead to infringement of YOUR rights as well. Now it has.
Just remember democrats, this law stays in place after the republicans take control again, and they will.
I won't discuss my personal life on that level, other than to say that we practiced the methods of birth control that are sanctioned by the church. And they worked well except for one that slipped by the goalie. That resulted in the most fantastic, bright, energetic human being you would ever want to know. As usual, God knew what we needed better than we did.
Dubya: "...led to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and thousands of dead Americans."--> And you are comparing this to 1.4 million dead babies at the hands of abortionists every year in the U.S. alone. That's somewhere around 50 million dead babies since Roe v. Wade. But this is OK with you, because these children can't talk or defend themselves. Not a very humanitarian attitude there, Dubya. Oh, but you rationalize it within your own mind by calling these dead children "zygotes". I guess that must make it feel OK to you.
No, the Pope was probably right in this non-religious matter. But neither his comments pertaining to the Iraq invasion, nor the invasion itself, infringed upon the Constitutional rights of Americans. Odumbo's phony 'health care' bill does. But if you're just worried about sheer numbers, based on Saddam's history, many more Iraqi's (and others) would be dead today if Saddam had been left in power.
I wonder when the secret service will get around to declaring the internet a non-free speech zone? Hmmmm......
The ignorance is astounding on the Right.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf
Public Policy Polling surveyed 656 likely Republican voters in Mississippi and 600 likely Republican primary voters in Alabama on March 10th and 11th
PPP shows only 67% think that interracial marriage should be legal.
A very large percentage of Alabama and Mississippi Republicans believe President Obama to be Muslim.
In Alabama, 45% said “Muslim”, 41% said “unsure.” Only 14% said that the President is Christian.
Mississippi Republicans were even more distrusting of President Obama’s faith, with 52% saying he was Muslim, 36% unsure and only 12% saying Christian.
It’s no shock to see 60% do not believe in evolution.
This is the mentality that poisons our democracy. And we wonder why we’re headed off a cliff.
TP,
Worship is more than just going to church and praying. It is part... telling others how to live, and what their business should be with insurance companies.
they are still being required, albeit through an intermediary, to offer a service which is absolutely contrary to a core tenet of the Catholic faith
In this case, the intermediary is the Church inserting itself between the insurance provider and the customer.
Even if the Church didn’t pay a cent of it, they are still providing the insurance service.
No. They are not providing it if they don’t pay for it.
Now, our Dear Leader Obama has come in and inserted himself into that free market and told the producer what he must supply to the consumer, and furthermore that the consumer MUST accept that service.
So women are forced to use contraceptives? That’s news.
It is hardly brave to condemn hateful speech wherever it is found. It is what decent people should do. The reason why I questioned your condemnation of Maher was the fact that you started justifying and mitigating his abhorrent comments. Indeed, you accepted the fact that Rush said what he did through second hand sources without flinching. (Don’t even try to convince me that you listen to Rush and heard the statement for yourself.) The irony is that when others told you of Maher’s “C”-word episode, you didn’t believe it, even when I provided a link with the transcript. How come you are far more skeptical of such scummy statements from someone with whom you agree politically then from someone with whom you disagree and loathe?
What you call “justifying and mitigating” was my assertion that you were making a false equivalency, one that I clearly explained.
You continue your false accusations and fantasy world view saying I heard Limbaugh’s hate from “second hand sources”. I’d say the video tape was from the original source.
Speaking of original source, you once again falsely claim to provide a link to the transcript of Maher’s “C” word. You did not. There is no transcript. I hate to break this to you, but merely believing something does not make it true. You have false beliefs.
For a start, maybe you should reconsider being a dittohead. Rush Limbaugh Attacked President Obama For ‘Targeting’ Joseph Kony’s ‘Christian’ LRA.
I am weary of this pattern of your false statements and my having to correct you.
I know your heart is in the right place, but your mind is caught up in a false belief system manufactured by the radical Right.
F&B,
The GOP wants less government control = Meaningless.
Right. Like the war on drugs and the checkpoints employed for such intrusions into our freedom of movement. Look at the GOP writing new laws to drug test people without suspicion, and sending women to medical exams against their will. Or must you deny that reality? Of course you must.
NO FREE SPEECH in 'Secret Service' controlled areas.
Well, well. Look who just woke up. We’ve been criticizing those Bush era “free speech zones” since 2003.
This is but one example of why you should listen to me instead of your authoritarian cult masters.
As I said to TP, maybe you should reconsider being a dittohead. Rush Limbaugh Attacked President Obama For ‘Targeting’ Joseph Kony’s ‘Christian’ LRA.
Remember that?
Nobody called dead children zygotes. Calm down. Zygotes are zygotes.
I’m very happy you have a wonderful child. But no matter what you say or believe, sex cannot be strictly for breeding offspring. That is a radical, medieval, Puritanical, and obviously unrealistic concept
You didn’t show me one Catholic funding birth control,
Presumably since all U.S. Catholics will have to on some level fund ObamaCare, the answer is ALL OF THEM. That's like 70 million examples. I don't think your blog could handle the size post it would take for a by-name list, nor do I think I could get the names of every Catholic that would object to having any of their money go to fund something that violates their religion.
Who is the Church to force an insurance company to not cover anything?
They're the customer. Nuff said. If a company wants say... Notre Dam's insurance contract sacrifices will be made. And they will be made, because that's a shit ton of money and the free market works.
My main question is where are all of the rich Canadians now going to go for their health care once Obamacare is fully implemented and the subsequent degradation of our healthcare system occurs?
Shit even the poor ones come to the U.S. or go on medical tourism to India. My pal Dave lives in Ottawa and has been on the wait list for his operation for so long he saved up the money and had it done in Detroit.
telling others how to live, and what their business should be... is what religions do. Thats why I'd never be a member of one. However, if a person chooses to do so they have that absolute right, and you can't make them violate their choice to subjugate themselves to said faith. It's illegal.
Nobody called dead children zygotes. Calm down. Zygotes are zygotes.
A Zygote is a human in a given stage of development. We can argue all day on the morality or legality of abortion, but you can't argue a Zygote isn't a human. A DNA test will very quickly prove the fetus isn't part of the mother and isn't any other species than human. Therefore, every abortion kills a human being. Period. Perhaps a very small, underdeveloped and not intelligent human being, but a unique human being none-the less. Therefore if you're going to be pro-choice IMHO, you'd better have some very strong arguements in your pocket to justify when and if an abortion is a moral choice. There isn't much question if it's a legal one, the SCOTUS decided that one with Roe Vs Wade. However just because it's legal doesn't make it a moral one now does it? Abortion as birth control? I don't think I'd feel comfortable having one penny of my money fund that, for moral reasons. Cut and dried that's a human life, and you're going to have to articulate a lot better reasons for me to get behind ending it other than "I forgot to use protection." Which by the way, I shouldn't have to pay for. I like to get laid as much as the next guy, but I don't think anyone should have to subsidize me doing it responsibly. Sex is for more than just procreation, it's all so one of my favorite recreational activities. Just as I don't expect my neighbor's taxes to fund my trip to Florida for recreation, I don't expect him to fun me getting lucky.
Free,
Everybody's tax money goes to something they oppose. Indirect tax expenitures do not violate their First Amendment rights.
When I hear Catholics outraged at their tax money going to capital punishment, and call that a "war on religion", I'll listen to their contraception complaints.
If the "Church" or parishioners paid for the insurance, I would understand their gripe.
You neglect medical needs and focus only on birth control. If contraception medication treats other conditions, why deny it?
Is the medication itself, apart form the use of it, under inquisition?
A human zygote is a human zygote. A zygote has no sex, no nervous system, no consciousness, no brain, and no identity. A zygote is not a man, not a woman, and not a child.
A zygote's rights shouldn't supersede a woman's rights. That is my opinion.
A fetus is much closer to a developed human being. I generally oppose late term abortions. That's just my opinion.
No man's opinion should dictate a woman's choice.
And that is my opinion.
Dubya: “If the ‘Church’ or parishioners paid for the insurance, I would understand their gripe.”
T. Paine: Dave, you are not paying attention. I have told you and we have already established that the Church IS paying for part of the insurance. Just like with nearly any other company, the employee pays PART of the premium, but part or usually MOST of that premium is paid for by the company, or in this case the Catholic Church. (Further, as I also stated, many Catholic institutions are self insurers, meaning they are the ones that offer and pay for the insurance.) As for the contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients being required by our master government, you know as well as I do that there is no such thing as “free”. I know you are not that naïve, Dave. The costs for these “services” will simply be absorbed into the overall price of the healthcare plan and what is charged for it accordingly. The individual may not have a co-pay for contraceptives, but that doesn’t mean that these “services” are free simply because the government says they must be so.
Now that we have once again clarified that case and there is no logical way to deny that the Church is indeed paying for the insurance which offers contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients, it seems that we have met your threshold for “understanding our gripe”. With that being the case, I assume we can count on you to stand up for the title of your blog and make a “freedom rant” in support of Americans’ first amendment right regarding religious liberty, right?
Dubya: “You neglect medical needs and focus only on birth control. If contraception medication treats other conditions, why deny it?”
T. Paine: I will copy my answer I had given to another gentleman that made this same argument over at Fair and Unbalanced My answer would be that a drug that is normally prescribed as a contraceptive could indeed be provided for under insurance to be used in treatment of other serious medical conditions. (Not because it helps with acne or other superfluous maladies though.)
Further, it is my understanding that the Catholic Church would accept this too. It has been explained by reliable Catholic sources to me that treatment of life-threatening or even serious health issues with medicines or even procedures that may subsequently have an abortive or contraceptive effect are permissible since this is not the intent or purpose of the treatment, but rather the life or health of the woman. The abortive or contraceptive effect in such instances is an unfortunate consequence in the treatment of the woman. It is not the purpose of the treatment. Because of the seriousness of the issue to those Catholics and others of like mind that take their faith seriously, it is critically important that this is a necessary last resort and that any other possible reliable treatments have been exhausted first though.
If the Obama administration had approached a compromise from this perspective, I think they would have found a solution. They obviously don't care about a true compromise though. They care about furthering entitlements and a political agenda.
Regardless, even if such a compromise was struck, my fear would be that we would see a huge rise in the number of women that would contract a "serious medical condition" that could only be treated with these abortifacient contraceptives all of a sudden.
Dubya: “A zygote's rights shouldn't supersede a woman's rights. That is my opinion. A fetus is much closer to a developed human being. I generally oppose late term abortions. That's just my opinion. No man's opinion should dictate a woman's choice.”
T. Paine: So your definition of when a “zygote” becomes human is when it develops a nervous system or organs? What species is that zygote before that point, Dave? So once the zygote crosses that arbitrary line to becoming a fetus, is that when we should outlaw the abortion of him/her? While I am glad that you generally oppose late term abortions, it would seem that the extremists in favor of “choice” are moving in the other direction. There are two “philosophers” in Britain, I believe, that have now made the case for “post-birth abortion” along the same thinking lines as Peter Singer. In other words they are favoring infanticide and couching it behind a gentler euphemism of something seemingly more benign like “post birth abortion”. This is the foreseen results of what happens when we no longer consider human life as sacred. After that, when we “abort” becomes just some arbitrary point during human development. I guess that is a “choice” that we all have to live with though, other than that of the child being aborted of course. He or she doesn’t have to live with that, and indeed cannot.
TP,
“post birth abortion”. This is the foreseen results of what happens when we no longer consider human life as sacred.
Wars and capital punishment are “post birth abortions” and are more than ample proof our government and politicians of both parties have no regard for human life as sacred. That horse is out of the barn.
Being pro-choice is not “extremist”. They are the majority.
I am simply stating my arbitrary opinion that aborting an embryo that is without a nervous system, sensation, or consciousness causes no pain and suffering. It wouldn’t have mattered at that stage to me, or any other embryo, if it were aborted.
There are medical distinctions to the phases of gestation, Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus. My opinion is irrelevant to those definitions, as well as to a woman’s choice. I have the right to disagree with an action, but I do not have the right to deny their rights.
I’d like to see evidence that treatment for non-contraceptive uses with birth control meds is permitted by Church affiliates. If you can show me the Church pays for the insurance, then their preference should be respected. Is there room for compromise if the woman pays a separate fee designated for contraception for birth control?
Believe it or not, I’m not trying to force Catholics to pay for contraception. I’m not even saying you’re nuts to call a zygote a human being. My definition of being human would include being a sentient being. Isn’t that what Homo sapiens means?
"T. Paine: Often times what is labeled as “contraception” is inaccurate. With many types of “contraceptives” conception actually does occur. An egg is fertilized and thus life is produced. The lining of the uterus is thinned though, so that life is aborted accordingly. These types of contraceptives are actually abortifacients. They CAUSE abortions."
Why is that your business? The uterus shedding a fertilized egg is NOT shedding a human being, it is shedding a potential human being. An apple seed is not an apple. A fertilized ovum is not a human being. Some religions believe that at the moment of conception, an ovum is "ensouled." But that is a religious concept, not a scientific/medical one. A fertilized ovum has no brain stem, no cirulatory system, no nervous system. To abort at this state is not aborting a "baby."
Dubya, what you referred to as 'Bush era “free speech zones”', have been around since the Nixon/Johnson days. Your god-king Odumbo has dramatically expanded the circumstances of their use and lowered the bar for prosecuting those who violate this rule. Although it heavily favors the party in power, I'm sure many more young democrats will be arrested under this new law than republicans.
Without re-hashing all the related stuff above, it is peculiar that you would blast the right wingers who think Obummer is Muslim. Why do you think he isn't? Because he said so? He has been to church about 13 times in over 3 years since becoming prez. Not exactly the actions of a devout Christian. I don't think he's Christian or Muslim or anything else. He is such a narcissist that he appears to worship only himself.
Regarding government control, I said conservatives want LESS government control, not NO government control - that would be anarchy. But you liberals want a nanny state with total government control over every aspect of peoples' lives.
As I have told you before, I am not a dittohead. Rush can be entertaining sometimes but I work for a living, I don't listen to his radio show. I might catch it about once every month or two when I'm out for lunch but even then I only hear 15 or 20 minutes of his 3 hour show. But I'll make a deal with you . . . I'll cut down even more on the Limbaugh if you'll cut down on your Rachel Maddow and the DNC talking points. Deal?
Shaw: "Why is that your business?" --> Many of us believe that someone needs to stand up for the rights of the 1.4 million babies who are massacred each year in the U.S. by abortionists, and are unable to defend themselves. Personally, I am opposed to the use of abortifacients for that reason. I understand that you do not believe that a zygote is a human. I believe that it is. Other forms of preventive birth control are up to the user. But don't tell me I have to pay for them through subsidizing insurance premiums. I refuse to do so.
Dubya, you continue to mis-characterize the churches position on birth control. No progress will ever be made as long as one side refuses to acknowledge the truth.
//as long as one side refuses to acknowledge the truth.//
which of course is F&B's .... he has a lock on the truth...
Okjimm,
Exactly.
F&B,
No progress will ever be made as long as one side refuses to acknowledge the truth.
What we hear you saying is, “There will never be compromise from us radical Right winger ideologues who believe we alone possess the truth”.
Unless you show evidence of such pre-Bush “free speech zones”, your assertion is as empty as Limbaugh’s conscience. (If you cannot criticize him, you are a dittohead.)
Your cult koolade is speaking when you say “Your god-king Odumbo”. Where have I shown such reverence? I have been calling him a moderate/right leaning corporatist since before the 2008 election.
Your cult koolade is once again speaking when you say, “it is peculiar that you would blast the right wingers who think Obummer is Muslim”.
Why shouldn’t I blast ignorance and racism? And why won’t you?
You even admit he’s gone to church. (More than Reagan, by the way.) When did he go to a mosque for services? Why would he drink alcohol in view of cameras? Some Muslim. I’d guess, for you and many of your Deep South neo-confederates, Blacks have a higher threshold for being Christian than white Republicans. We understand.
Most politicians are at least somewhat narcissistic. Yes, even your goddess-queen Palin is narcissistic. At one time I would have voted for McCain, but after he started singing like a Neocon about bombing Iran, and selected a prom queen dunce as a person qualified to be president, I was forced to vote for Obama.
Conservatives want LESS government control of pollution, safety regulations, and Wall Street swindles. They always want MORE control of a woman’s uterus, and MORE monitoring of the bodily fluids of innocent Americans.
I see you spew one of the favorite cult lines of indoctrination.
But you liberals want a nanny state with total government control over every aspect of peoples' lives.
At least they don’t hand me a cup and follow me to the restroom.
I’ll take a socialist nanny state over your vision of a theocratic radical Right fascist police state any day.
Now you're just getting bitter. You continue to attribute idologies to me that I never even insinuated, much less stated outright. Then you try to protest when others do the same to you. But I must admit, you are good at parroting the DNC company line.
At least on the subject of Dubya's mis-characterization of the Catholic church's position on birth control, yes I do.
If the liberals cannot present their argument without lying about Catholic beliefs and practices, then they should walk away from the argument rather than trying to intentionally mislead in an attempt to make their incorrect points.
An argument that is based on a lie as its foundation can never be a correct or accurate assessment of the truth.
F&B,
When did the DNC say Obama is a corporatist? You really are a fount of dishonesty.
And YOU want to accuse me of being bitter? LOL!
Look at the loathsome and accusatory tone in your false opening words.
The only thing you even came close to getting right, Dubya, was that corporations have spoken up, which is the way the process works. After that you regress into your typical far-left wacko nonsense.
More falsehoods popped out.
"They want minority rule over the majority." --> Absolutely a false statement.
Year 2000 ring a bell? Money as free speech would benefit Big Money with more free speech, power and influence, and relatively less free speech, power and influence to the 99%.
The condescension and thinly concealed contempt show through a favorite lie,
“The left does not understand concepts such as taking responsibility for your own actions”.
And Wall Street Republicans take responsibility?
And then we see:
An argument that is based on a lie as its foundation can never be a correct or accurate assessment of the truth.
This is hilarious coming from the person who just said:
”It is peculiar that you would blast the right wingers who think Obummer is Muslim. Why do you think he isn't? Because he said so?
Your Orwellian Doublethink glares from your darkest insinuations.
You allege what I say is bitter, because what I say is the bitter truth. You’re own bitter forays into untruths project back at you. You need to call me a liar to project your defense of the lies of the radical Right.
You haven’t even shown us the courtesy of enlightening everyone by exposing such lies I may have written.
I said, “I’ll take a socialist nanny state over your vision of a theocratic radical Right fascist police state any day.”
And you accused me by saying I “attribute ideologies to me that I never even insinuated, much less stated outright”.
You insinuate plenty. Your words promote the radical Right agenda plain as day.
The Right that has pushed for:
More intrusions into personal lives. Launching a war on drugs, Checkpoints, Papers, please. Launching unprovoked wars of aggression. Promoting the wealth and political power of the elites of the corporatist plutocracy at the expense of the 99%. Subversion of democracy by imposing restrictions and suppression of voters’ rights.
All these are examples of the Right wanting MORE authoritarian government control of people, contrary to your nanny state lie.
The radical Right wants less regulation of Big Money, and fewer rules to regulate their games of financial fraud and greed. They want fewer voters, less government services for the public good, less representation for the majority, and more, always more, wealth and political power for the economic elites. Wealth for the elites has grown exponentially, and accommodated through crony capitalism’s bought and paid for Big Money owned Congress.
And the Right wants to take more away from the 99%. It will never stop its efforts to gouge more from the majority, for the gains of the elites. These are the fruits of your Right Wing ideology.
The path to fascism runs throughout these antidemocratic efforts of the radical Right. You have supported all of this over the past years in your comments.
And you dare say your side alone owns the truth? That is your theocratic flag flying with Right Wing authoritarianism against democracy.
Have you ever wonder why they say, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”?
Really? Have you ever wondered why someone would say that?
I bet not.
"truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
Winston Churchill
....could not really participate in this discussion. If I really wanted to hear someone tell me how wrong I am to insist the sun rises in the East.... I can always call my ex-wife.
Happy St Patrick's Day.
I guess I'm moderate on the abortion issue. Sometimes killing born people is acceptable. In war, or in self defense, or even an abortion in certain circumstances. Take the death penalty, I'm not against it but I wouldn't want to see it used for jay-walking either. Same with abortion. I don't think it should be used for an "oops I got drunk last night" circumstance- however if a woman has serious complications that necessitate a medical reason I'm not going to object.
So sometimes it's a right choice and sometimes it's wrong. On demand? Can't support that, same way I can't support the death penalty for jay-walking. Same way it's okay to kill the enemy in war but not okay to target civilians.
Because with war, abortion or an execution in every circumstance you're killing a person. That's a bell you can't un-ring and you have to take that very seriously. Abortion isn't a run-of-the-mill medical procedure... a human life ends as the result of every abortion. Even that zygote meets the scientific definition of life, and any DNA test will reveal with 100% certainty that the life is human. So you're killing a person. Make no mistake. Now abortion is legal and it will remain legal. The question is can you look yourself in the mirror after you have one.
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross
I wouldn't know why, because when it came to Italy and Germany it wasn't wrapped in anything other than the party flag and it took crosses down and replaced them with swasticas in the name of the poor Italian and German worker/farmer, standing up against the 1% of that age... or at least that's what they claimed. Didn't really end up that way, as history showed. So I guess the person who said that is ignorant of European history, or just talking out of their ass.
Free0352 mentioned...
"Even that zygote meets the scientific definition of life, and any DNA test will reveal with 100% certainty that the life is human."
Of course! Although, even a single red blood cell also meets the scientific definition of "life". It's also true that DNA testing will reveal, with 100% certainty, whether a red blood cell is (from a) human...or from any particular or specific hominoid, or canine, or feline, or...(fill in blank)
It's all "life".
Free0352 incorrectly claimed...
"...when it came to Italy and Germany it wasn't wrapped in anything other than the party flag and it took crosses down and replaced them with swasticas [sic] in the name of the poor Italian and German worker/farmer..."
After Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930s, a swastika was incorporated into the Nazi party flag, which was made the State Flag of Germany. The Nazis used the swastika as a symbol of an alleged, and superior, Aryan race.
As for fascist Italy under Mussolini, the symbol of fascism was the fasces -- not the swastika. the fasces is a bundle of sticks featuring an axe, indicating the power over life and death. Interestingly, even to this day, the symbol continues to appear on the seal of the U.S. Senate.
If you're going to try to give a history lesson, could you please at least make it factually correct? As far as the quotation attributed to Sinclair Lewis, I'm more apt to go along with the wisdom of a Nobel Laureate than the meandering musings of a foot soldier.
"I understand that you do not believe that a zygote is a human. I believe that it is. Other forms of preventive birth control are up to the user. But don't tell me I have to pay for them through subsidizing insurance premiums. I refuse to do so."I
Millions and millions of US taxpayers subsidize thing they do not like or believe in. Why is your cause more important than say someone who is religiously opposed to war? Or capital punishment? Those are the taking of human life, and we've learned that it is not unusual to have a non-guilty person killed by the state in a capital punishment case. We also know that in any sort of war or conflict women, pregnant women, babies, and children are killed. I've never seen the passion against war and capital punishment that I see against abortion. I have to take away from that the possibility that a lot of the anti-abortion rage is probably about anti-women's sexual freedom. There's an element of wanting women to pay for their sexual freedom in this, and Rick Santorum, who is against birth control, has revealed this.
Taking the morning after pill to abort a fertilized ovum is NOT killing a "baby." Using that rhetoric diminishes your point.
Of course! Although, even a single red blood cell also meets the scientific definition of "life". It's also true that DNA testing will reveal, with 100% certainty, whether a red blood cell is (from a) human...or from any particular or specific hominoid, or canine, or feline, or...(fill in blank)
Yes, and if I were to destroy your red blood cells via poison I would be guilty of assault or murder depending on how many I killed. Since an abortion kills all the cells a fetus or zygote has, clearly that life is ending. That life isn't a part of the mother, as again a DNA test will clearly prove with 100% accuracy that the human inside the mother is unique from her.
You can argue about the morality of a given abortion but you can't argue logically it isn't killing a human. Science doesn't back that up.
As for italian fascism it all ended up swasticas in the end - after Hitler took over Italy. And as for the flag, you admit yourself the German Workers party took down their national flag and replaced it with THEIR flag... the party flag. Right after that swasticas were replacing crosses and churches were being nationalized. You can see it to this day in Germany, where the nazi symbols have had to be cut away from the stone on the cathedrals and local churches that survived the war. The Nazis carried a cross all right, the swastica not the crucifix.
ooh ooh... I missed F&B's rejoiner
//An argument that is based on a lie as its foundation can never be a correct or accurate assessment of the truth.//
.... but FBee... an argument that is based in bullshit can never be construed as anything but bullshit....and making it an assessment of the truth is ...well...still bullshit.
you still have this sanctimonious attitude that you and only you have a lock on the truth... wich is bullshit.
Free,
The first facet of the fascism quote that your argument has ignored is the part about fascism coming to America. Italy and Germany are other places in another time.
We had our own American fascists who took to Hitler's ideas over FDR's. (Spare us the Internment camps false equivalency. Vile as they may have been, they were not for slave labor or genocide.)
Your arguments are also not on firm ground for another reason.
You are offering a literal argument, of loose historical narrative at that, against a metaphor.
Let me show you an example of how that metaphor was once realized.
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
American politicians sound just like this guy. (He-who-must-not-be-named.)
The fear and complacency that has been induced by a "war on terror" mentality could someday submit us to martial law and other “State of Emergency” suppression.
Fascism. It can’t happen here?
It is amusing to see the near panic on the extremist fringe over a phantom shroud of communism, while the spirit of fascism demanded "loyalty oaths" to hear the president speak, kicks in peaceful citizens’ doors looking for politically incorrect plants, tells people for no good reason to pee in a cup, has suppressed voter turnout and registration, took us into an unprovoked war, and is now demanding, "Papers, please," at checkpoints on the highways.
If you want to play the quote game, he also said-
"We don`t say to the rich `Give to the poor`, we say `German people, help each other`. Rich or poor, each one must help thinking, there`s someone even poorer than I am, and I want to help them as a fellow countryman. The State must enforce this, it is a German moral imperative."
Oh, and it gets better. Remember, Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse.
"In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water."
So Hitler wasn't a fan of Capitalism. I'm pretty sure our Republican friends preach it like dogma. But let me continue.
"The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are."
So according to Adolph Hitler, the fundamental difference between communist socialism and national socialism (Nazism) is race. That's about it. Both are socialist movements. Funny how both of those ended up... with a huge pile of dead people.
We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.
Damn, Hitler sounds like he should be speaking at an OWS camp out here...
So forgive me, but if I must choose between the lesser of two evils, I tend to choose the Republican evil, since it sounds about as far away from these Hitler ideas (let alone Stalin's) as can be found. After all, I'm about as opposite from Hitler as can be... being one of those damn Ayn Rand'ers.
It seems to me Liberal Progressives are trying to revive that old re-World War II vintage notion that the two “extremes,” are: fascism versus communism.
The political origin of that notion is more shameful than the “moderates” would care publicly to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. That notion is the tool of totalitarianism.
In the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up -as opposites- two variants of the same political system: It eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?” thus establishing statism as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice — according to the proponents of that fraud — is: A dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).
That fraud collapsed in the 1940’s, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory and that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that people are rightless slaves of the state, dependent on the state, and have a duty to the state.
Both Communism and Socialism are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders. Under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique. Fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left” just as communism is. The basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government — which means: capitalism versus socialism. That is the "Big Lie" of the left. It is not rich vs poor but man vs Big Government.
Which party opposes Big Government... well at least says it does?
Very well said Free0352. Karl Marx himself said that communism is the ultimate goal of socialism.
Dubya quoting F&B: "It is peculiar that you would blast the right wingers who think Obummer is Muslim. Why do you think he isn't? Because he said so?" --> Sorry, that was a set-up. I knew you would take that statement out of context. Thanks for being consistent and predictable. My point was: "I don't think he's Christian or Muslim or anything else. He is such a narcissist that he appears to worship only himself."
But, since you brought up Sarah Palin, and you think it is OK for democrats to say whtever vile, hate filled comments about her that they want. Do you also think it is OK that the left wingers preyed viciously on Bristol Palin too? And on Sarah's special needs son, Trig? Why is it perfectly OK to the lefties that Sarah Palin's children were brutally attacked by other left wingers? Bristol Palin has written an open letter to Obama that was posted at the Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/19/bristol-palin-to-president-obama-i-look-forward-to-your-call-sir/
Just in case anyone is interested in hearing the view of a young conservative girl who was subjected to numerous and repeated attackes from the left. (Many of which were based in the left wing notion that Bristol should have aborted her baby rather than carrying it to term.)
Shaw: "Taking the morning after pill to abort a fertilized ovum is NOT killing a "baby."" --> I believe that it is. The 'morning after' pill has the potential to terminate a unique human life.
Free,
Wow. Talk about missing the point about “carrying a cross”.
So according to Adolph Hitler.. Are you sure you want to ascribe truth to that man?
We’re not using Hitler’s words to find truth. We are using his words an example of the metaphor.
Yet you confirm my position, over and over, that politicians will say anything. Like this, “Which party opposes Big Government... well at least says it does?”
Exactly. They SAY that...as they claim authority to monitor every uterus, and demand “Papers, please”, and set up highway checkpoints, demand urine samples, kick in doors of medical cannabis shops and users, and intercept all electronic communications of Americans, allow law enforcement the legalized piracy of “property forfeiture” without conviction, etc. The list goes on, doesn’t it? You still want to believe those guys? Step right up, raise your right hand, and take your “loyalty oath”.
In your rush to equate socialism, communism and fascism you ignore the most significant factor. Of the three, only socialism is compatible with democracy.
Democratic socialism is the moderate way between the extremes of fascism and communism.
Fascism and communism are in direct opposition to the principles of democracy. Kind of like the Republican Party. In a contest between rich and poor, the rich will win every time with their Republican Party in power. Why? Because their guiding principle is expanding wealth at the top and empowering those elites, while stripping public services and undermining democratic principles. In other words, minority rule, like fascism and communism.
The basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” It is when the GOP/corpodems are in power. One side loses. The other gains.
Fascism benefits the insider elites. Communism benefits the insider elites. Corporatist unregulated capitalism benefits the insider elites. Democratic socialism benefits most citizens. That is historical fact.
Fascist death camps and slave labor camps do not equate with the US internment camps. The purpose was different. The treatment was different. The medical care was different. The hope of release was different. Ask a survivor if they “equate”.
----
F&B,
What is it with you guys? You trust and believe the words of Marx and Hitler?
It’s ok for anyone to say almost anything about politicians. What’s your problem with that? Obama was called a terrorist at a Palin rally. She seemed to welcome that kind of talk. If what is said was ignorant, hateful or a lie, then it should be called out as such.
You still refuse to see the difference between a liar using the public airwaves to call a private person a slut and a comedian saying things about established cash hungry media figures on a pay channel or in concert. The Palins really are attention seeking crybabies. Boo hoo.
Which one do you think that children could have more easily heard? Limbaugh or Maher? There’s no equivalency, and no outrage form the bastions of hypocrisy. This is what you sound like. “What, Rush said something bad? Let’s slam Maher, and defend Sarah Palin.”
Maher said the little Dancing Queen with the Stars was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.”
Crass, but true. Unlike Limbaugh. He’s a filthy hateful liar. But that’s not so bad, if you’re a Republican.
Right?
Fascism historically, and typically, operates as a political party at the forefront of a mass movement, or revolution designed to initiate a revolution from above -- as opposed to pressure exerted from below -- and as a major force in events, and to organize the nation upon fascist principles, such as but not limited to: (1) promoting political violence and war; (2) opposing multiple ideologies; (3) purifying the nation of foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture; and (4) utilizing paramilitary organizations for violence against opponents or to overthrow a political system. To achieve its goals, fascist states, and movements, purge ideas, people, and systems thought to be the cause of decadence and degeneration. Most importantly, fascism rejects conventional democracy that is based on majority rule -- its focus being authoritarian rule, based on rule of the most qualified, rather than rule granted by the majority.
Sure, all "revolutions' are designated the propriety of the proletariat ("working class"), where they are seeded and hatched and delivered, and it's also true that fascism was influenced by both left and right ideas during its inception during World War I, but it's the consensus of most historians that fascism is more correctly considered right-wing due to its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing equality among all. That's why it slides to, and dominates, the right side of the political spectrum.
I think Lewis appropriately and accurately described how fascism will endanger and eventually engulf this nation with his earlier mentioned quotation ("When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."). Sure, it's not "exactly" how things degenerated in pre-war Germany, but then history doesn't always repeat itself -- but it sure does rhyme (attributed to Mark Twain). What's developing here is, for lack of a better term, "corporate-fascism", where the state and multinationals collude and work together for the benefit of a few; to the detriment and denial of the rest. It's happening now...today...right under your unsuspecting nose.
By the way, I applaud your attempt to insert the square peg of fascism into the round hole of communism, but no matter how much you twist and yank, push and pull, it still isn't going to fit.
Nice try...
Dubya - the answer is that lefties need to stop defending other lefties and condemning the right for doing the same things, and 'ditto' on the right. Only then will we be able to open a constructive dialogue.
If Limbaugh is a filthy, hateful liar, then so is Maher. If Maher's comments were OK, then so were Limbaugh's. There is no 'false equivalency' here (one of the left's favorite new terms). You want to condemn Bristol Palin based on your claim that she is an "attention seeking crybaby" while ignoring the fact that Sandra Fluke is an "attention seeking crybaby". (She is a plant, the interview was staged by Pelosi and her handlers, Fluke entered Georgetown with the full intent of challenging their policy towards insurance and birth control, etc. - she really was not a private person, she walked into this with her eyes wide open.)
If it is OK for Maher to bash Bristol Palin, then it is OK for Limbaugh to bash Sandra Fluke. If Limbaugh should be condemned for his comments about Fluke, then so should Maher for his comments about Bristol Palin.
Until both sides are willing to end the hypocrisy, rational discourse will not happen. Even when one side or the other has a good idea or a strong argument, the other side rejects it as a matter of course rather than giving it the meaningful, thoughtful consideration that it may deserve.
FandB, you countered weakly with the following...
"If Limbaugh is a filthy, hateful liar, then so is Maher."
Maher is a stand-up comedian; Limbaugh is not. Big difference in delivery; big difference in audience. If you condemn Maher, you'll have to condemn every comedian, right (which there are few) and left, who single out celebrities and skewer them.
By the way, Sandra Fluke isn't a celebrity. She's an ordinary citizen who was brought before Congress to testify -- nothing more, nothing less.
"You want to condemn Bristol Palin based on your claim that she is an 'attention seeking crybaby' while ignoring the fact that Sandra Fluke is an 'attention seeking crybaby'."
Bristol Palin contracted to dance in order to profit, and to bask in her mother's dwindling fifteen minutes of fame. As already mentioned, Sandra Fluke testified before Congress.
I hope you can see the difference.
"She [Fluke] is a plant, the interview was staged by Pelosi and her handlers, Fluke entered Georgetown with the full intent of challenging their policy towards insurance..."
You'll have to cite evidence and verifiable sources about this...meaning all the accusations.
Ms. Fluke's a third-year law student at Georgetown. Are you saying she's been waiting in the wings for at least two years in order to challenge the university's policies? Seems highly improbably to me.
Again, please verify your statements. Each one of them, please.
"...when one side or the other has a good idea or a strong argument, the other side rejects it as a matter of course rather than giving it the meaningful, thoughtful consideration that it may deserve."
Yes, I agree, this happens more than I would think it should. But, obviously, neither side is willing to budge because of strong personal feelings about the subject.
But, the real question, for me anyway, is why do you, a conservative, feel a particular need to hang out at decidedly liberal blogs to prove you're right...er, correct? It's analogous, to me anyway, to hanging outside the doors of a synagogue, for example, and initiating arguments about the supremacy of the Catholic Church, or the infallibility of the pope.
So, I'll ask again, why do you do it?
why do you, a conservative, feel a particular need to hang out at decidedly liberal blogs to prove you're right...er, correct?
Why do liberal progressives always complain and scream "hate speech" every time your messed up ideas are challenged? Its funny that way, since liberals are always calling everyone who doesn't agree with you close minded and yet here were are seeking you out.
only socialism is compatible with democracy.
Yes, because National Socialism and The People's Republic of "Insert totalitarian State's Name" are democratic.
Move to Cuba, and enjoy your attempts at voting. Also, your record for the support of individual rights Dave is self evident. Bottom line, you support the fiat of the collective over the rights of the individual. You will probably continue to do this till the clique who represents the "collective will of the people" steps on a right you actually give a fuck about.
First, I don't have to prove or cite anything. Feel free to confirm, or wallow in your own ignorance, it makes no difference to me.
Second, you're right...er, correct, why should I bother...
Adios.
Free0352, you contributed with this...
"And the only one really crying here are liberals..."
Really? So you're saying conservatives haven't been wallowing in tears about their perceived mishandling of their favorite pet's offspring, Bristol?
You haven't been paying attention.
"Hypocrisy to the max yo!"
Yo, Vinnie!
FandB, you offered as a closing remark the following (while running away with your tail between your legs)...
"First, I don't have to prove or cite anything."
No, you don't. I agree. Concurrently, I don't have to believe a word that you're saying. Since you can't back up your assertions, I can only assume they came out of your ass.
Good riddance...
F&B wrote:
If Limbaugh is a filthy, hateful liar, then so is Maher. If Maher's comments were OK, then so were Limbaugh's. There is no 'false equivalency' here (one of the left's favorite new terms).
This by itself is the perfect example of a false equivalency, one of the Right’s favorite old fallacies.
We’ve been pretty clear showing the differences between the two, just as I’ve been very clear showing the differences between Free’s false equivalency of Nazi slave labor/death camps and the US internment camps.
Explaining the false equivalency with Limbaugh, Maher told ABC News’s Jake Tapper:
“He went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women’s rights all year, on the public airwaves. I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who’s called people “terrorist” and ‘un-American’.” The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.”
Of course, if you take out of context over 10 years snippets inside comedy bits you can make anyone look bad, and sometimes I have been, not perfect, but not misogyny. In general, this is an obvious right wing attempt to dredge up some old shit about me to deflect from their self-inflicted problems. They are the kings of false equivalencies.”
I think Free disagrees with my statement that socialism is compatible with democracy, while fascism and communism are not. His sarcastic remark didn’t quite make his point.
Yes, because National Socialism (fascism) and The People's Republic of "Insert totalitarian State's Name" (communism) are democratic.
As anyone with a bit of understanding knows, the National Socialism of the Nazis is about as similar to democratic socialism as the Peoples Republic of Whatever is to a republic.
If Free could retain what he reads, or had read something to begin with, he would see my record of support of individual rights, by denouncing the Right wing assault on voting rights and women’s reproductive rights. I have condemned the degradations of our Bill of Rights by the so called Patriot Act and new FISA rules as well. I have also defended our rights to privacy from the intrusions of a wrong-headed war on drugs.
Free must have missed those parts.
assault on voting rights and women’s reproductive rights. - at the expense of other's rights.
Reproductive rights? No one anywhere is saying a woman can't get an abortion on demand or use birth control. In fact, I said I use birth control and support it's use. What we said was that forcing any employer, especially one that is part of a church, to provide birth control by forcing them to purchase a good (insurance) for an employee violates their right to exercise property rights (their money and business/church) and freedom to practice religion in accordance with their beliefs. I even provided examples of other cases where exceptions are made for such a provision, such as Muslims, Jews, the Amish, and Christian Scientists.
What you are supporting is not support of reproductive or any other right. You are supporting extorting a church of money by forcing it buy a good against it's will - more over a good that is against the teachings of said churches religion. It's no different than forcing an Amish kid to attend the 12th grad, a Quaker to join the Army, or a Jew to eat pig.
As for voting rights, asking someone to show an ID to vote does not suppress voting rights any more so than asking a person to submit to a background check violates a person's right to keep and bare arms. You can't support one and not the other logically. Further, supporting no type of reasonable controls (such as an ID check) further aids those who commit voter fraud to continue the practice, which violates every other citizen's right to vote.
You are for "individual rights" when it suits your purposes, but when it does not you are quick Dave to advocate trampling them.
As for National Socialism they were for universal healthcare, gun control, abortion on demand, welfare, limiting or eliminating capitalism, state regulation, strong central government, stimulation of the economy through large public works projects, and a belief that the good of the many outweighs the rights of the individual. The core difference between the two was communists wanted these things for everyone and National Socialists wanted them for Aryans.
Other than the minor differences on race, they are fundamentally the same. For that matter, they are similar to Liberal Democrats. Take away their fundamental evil, and still both systems collapsed because they fail economically and regardless of attempts for equitable distribution of wealth all citizens universally ended up worse off except for a small ruling clique. This is true as well for countries not fundamentally evil such as Greece.
Socialism no matter what it's face, fails. Capitalism as both an economic system and in principle a governmental system however has created the wealthiest country on the planet and the more capitalist the country, you find the more wealthy it is.
Last, I have proven the fallacy that there are only two extremes, Fascism and Communism. This "right left" political yard stick was the tool of Musolini and Hitler and is used today as well by Socialists to scare people into surrendering individual rights to avoid a mythical extreme. In reality totalitarianism is totalitarianism is totalitarianism no matter what name it is given or assumes.
And as for Bill and Rush, the only difference is your hypocritical support of the one and the rejection of the other. But double think of course is requirement in collectivist thought.
A good example here, is recent Republican "feigned outrage" over Robert Di'Nero's latest fundraiser where he made a joke. Seriously? Who gives a fuck?
Back to the point of this post, if you think the military should have media for it's troops (and it should) then it should be (duh) up to the troops what they want on the AFN network and radio. It's for their moral and welfare, not yours. Frankly, if men shouldn't have an opinion on woman's issues like abortion such as Dave has suggested then by the same logic civilians (like Dave) should have as much say as to what troops put on their radio station.
It's not for you or I to judge and be the taste police. I don't care what Di'Nero says, ORMaher says. I believe in free speech. If you don't like what the troops choose to put on their radio station, fine - but it's still not your business. They put Rachel Maddow (and when he had a TV show Kieth Oberman) on it too and I don't hear your complaining about that? And there is the double standard. You're happy as a clam when troops want to hear Rachel Maddow on AFN but "Oh the OUTRAGE!" when your tax dollars that fund the troops TV network and radio syndicate Rush. Oh, and BTW, there is no advertising on AFN so it's not like anyone is getting any royalties on it.
That's both parties these days and it's pathetic on both accounts. I can't stand feigned outrage at what people say. If you don't like it, switch channels and if you don't like what the military puts on it's radio station then go fuck yourself. If you want a vote in that head on down to your local recruiters and sign the fuck up. Till then, you don't get AFN anyway so it's none of your business.
Ah, more fresh false equivalence thrown in here, this time about Jews and Quakers. No difference, eh?
let's not forget something.
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/05/437800/female-veterans-demand-rush-limbaughs-show-be-pulled-from-american-forces-network/
VoteVets, a coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, released a letter today (March 5) from a group of female veterans calling on the American Forces Network to drop Rush Limbaugh from its programming.
Miranda Norman (who is a VoteVets.org Senior Advisor), Kayla Williams, and Robin Eckstein, all Iraq War Veterans, and Katherine Scheirman, former chief of medical operations in the U.S. Air Forces, released the following statement:
Rush Limbaugh has a freedom of speech and can say what he wants, but in light of his horribly misogynistic comments, American Forces Radio should no longer give him a platform. Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other – women and men. There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect. When many of our female troops use birth control, for Limbaugh to say they are “sluts” and “prostitutes” is beyond the pale. It isn’t just disrespectful to our women serving our country, but it’s language that goes against everything that makes our military work. Again, we swore to uphold our Constitution, including the freedom of speech, and would not take that away from anyone – even Limbaugh. But that does not mean AFN should broadcast him. In fact, it shouldn’t.
AFN is owned and operated by the Department of Defense, funded with taxpayer dollars.
If you don't like what the troops choose to put on their radio station, fine - but it's still not your business.
Yes it is. We pay for Limbaugh on AFN, even more directly so than Catholics pay for birth control.
F and B: And that is one major difference between the left and the right. The conservatives are willing to step up and correct others on the right, the left does not do the same on its side. The left does not understand concepts such as taking responsibility for your own actions.
Really? Let's see about that.
On this thread: http://www.davedubya.com/2012/01/what-class-warfare.html
Freeo352 proudly stated: "the only good hippie is a dead hippie"--which means he thinks mass murder is 1) a positive good and 2) something to joke about. (We see that in the 70s, he was likely one of the proud bullies who specialized in beating up hippies.)
If you are serious about your comment, let's hear you CORRECT him, right here, and inform him that this language is unacceptable, addressed to anyone, ABOUT anyone, for any reason.
You won't, since you don't think this way.
So since your moral authority is already highly compromised, how about you save the sanctimony?
If you DO have the guts to tell him he is wrong, my apologies... but I have no such illusions that any right-winger will do as they promise they will.
If so, here is your chance... although in light of the arrogant moralism of that paragraph, I am pretty shocked (ha, not really) that you have not already corrected him for his murderous, genocidal desires.
Why haven't you?
Oh that's right, because what you say is BULLSHIT.
Daisy,
BS through and through. Never seen one of them "correct" another yet. Perhaps they confuse being Right Wing with being right, as in correct. They are a cult. They are programmed to actually believe, "The left does not understand concepts such as taking responsibility for your own actions".
There's no reasoning with either Moonies or radical Righties. Deprogramming is the only cure.
I think they hate hippies for their freedom. ;-)
You're assuming again I'm "right wing."
I'm not a member of the Republican Party and haven't been so in nearly half a decade.
Oh, and killing hippies is both hilarious as a joke and in real life.
Post a Comment