Has Rush gone too far?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Has Rush gone too far?
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Mar 6, 2012 9:12 AM
I am not sure what you call Ms. Fluke; is there a term for one who is pimped out by the radical, left wing of the democrat party, in order to deflect attention from the president's disastrous economic record?
Mar 6, 2012 9:12am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Mar 6, 2012 9:33 AM
jmog;1105937 wrote:Then said employer should be ALLOWED to chose that and the employees would know what is/is not covered going into the job. Your argument doesn't hold water at all.
No.to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Mar 6, 2012 9:33am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Mar 6, 2012 9:38 AM
BGFalcons82;1104317 wrote:For decades, the Left, with the able backing of the ACLU's stable of lawyers, has argued against placing navitity scenes and menorahs on government-owned property, against placing the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls, and for the removal of all references to God from anything related to governmental property. They pound their fists and proudly state that the state cannot promote religion based on the First Amendment.

Now, for the first time in my lifetime, government is in the act of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The Bill of Rights is very clear on this issue if you can understand the English language. Yet, here we are, debating whether or not the same government should provide free contraception, up to AND INCLUDING sterilization and an abortion pill, against the tenets of one of the world's most prevalent religious organizations. I'll ask anyone in favor of free contraception for all provided by all to answer one simple question:

Which is more important for our government, to protect the First Amendment or to provide free contraception/abortive medications for its citizens?
Wrong,Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order;
to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Mar 6, 2012 9:38am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Mar 6, 2012 9:47 AM
BGFalcons82;1106350 wrote:Says you that they are allowed to pass anything they want. Let's go back into the time machine...almost 2 years ago...when Obama coerced his signature legislation down our throats and through our rectums. The quintessential theme is that the central government will mandate whom must have healthkare coverage (breathing legal Americans), whom must provide it (private insurance carriers that want to continue being same), which limited selections of insurance packages will be offered (by the HHS Secretary), and what will be in each package (as determined by unnamed/unelected/unvetted bureaucrats whom answer to no public entity).

Under your definition, people would have the ability to opt-out without penalty. In other words, If someone's religion was violated by a regulator's pen, they could choose to NOT PARTICIPATE in whatever activity is being regulated. Under ObamaKare, for the very first time in the history of the republic, EVERYONE is REQUIRED to purchase a privately-sold product and there are NO opt-out provisions (unless, of course, you live in Pelosi's district, belong to a union, or donated to Barry's annointing...then you can get a waiver). There are no opt-out provisos. If the Roman Catholic institutions don't want to participate in offering contraceptives and abortive-meds, then what is their recourse? Can they opt-out on religious grounds? There are no opt-outs in a mandated program...unless they want to pay the fine or have their liberties taken away. Once again, I'll remind you that we are in unchartered waters with the ordered mandates in the law.

I'd be very interested in majorsparks' take on it. He has a very educated take on the Constitution.
Or you might look up Employment division v. Smith. The majority opinion was written very clearly by judge scalia no less that ruled that a statute banning the use of peyote was fine despite preventing native americans from engaging in religious rituals because it was a "neutral law of general applicability"
Mar 6, 2012 9:47am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Mar 6, 2012 10:39 AM
I Wear Pants;1106597 wrote: I don't understand Republican's objection to birth control.
Then you haven't been paying attention to ANYTHING but the MSM.

Republicans are NOT against BC, they are against the Federal government forcing religious institutions to give BC for free, especially when it goes against said religious institutions moral beliefs.

I do NOT agree with the Catholic stance on BC, but that doesn't mean that I believe the Feds should be allowed to violate the 1st Amendment and force Catholic organizations to violate their beliefs.
Mar 6, 2012 10:39am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Mar 6, 2012 10:59 AM
jmog;1106786 wrote:Then you haven't been paying attention to ANYTHING but the MSM.

Republicans are NOT against BC, they are against the Federal government forcing religious institutions to give BC for free, especially when it goes against said religious institutions moral beliefs.

I do NOT agree with the Catholic stance on BC, but that doesn't mean that I believe the Feds should be allowed to violate the 1st Amendment and force Catholic organizations to violate their beliefs.
Requiring health insurance companies that provide health insurance to catholic employers to cover the cost of birth control as part of preventative coverage for women does not violate the first amendment. The Free Exercise Clause does not prohibit the federal government or the state's from passing facially neutral laws that incidentally impact certain religious practices or conduct.
Mar 6, 2012 10:59am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Mar 6, 2012 11:11 AM
I Wear Pants;1106597 wrote:Elaborate on what you mean by K Street please.

I don't understand Republican's objection to birth control.
I don't understand your strawman argument, after I called you out on it once. Nothing is wrong with birth control IMO, nothing is wrong with LASIK surgery IMO, nothing is wrong with IVF IMO....what these three as examples, have in common is that not all insurers cover them. If your insurer doesn't via your work, you're free to seek out another insurer, or pay for the procedure yourself.

Am I not clear on this point? I really don't understand why you still don't get it.

As to K Street, its a reference to the lobbyists (which I mentioned earlier, I'll do it again so I"m clear - NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood) that are overwhelmingly Democrat, as the current piss poor administration is Democrat that is looking at a difficult election it isn't shocking that they are drumming up their base, even though to the average American benefits little as it is nothing more than Washington grandstanding.

There are advocates for access to other medical procedures, such as fertility treatments, but they don't carry the clout the organizations I mentioned above do, even though they likely care more about their cause and less about the power they can wield.
Mar 6, 2012 11:11am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Mar 6, 2012 11:22 AM
BoatShoes wrote: as part of preventative coverage for women does not violate the first amendment.
Prevent what, exactly? STD's? While condoms may be slightly less effective, they are superior on the STD front. Yet I don't hear anyone claiming condoms should be covered. And you don't need to cover a doctor's visit to prescribe condoms. From a purely objective and economical standpoint, and health perspective, condoms would be the superior choice to cover. I have a bit of an issue with mandating HOW something should be treated, especially when that mandate supports an inferior and more costly alternative.
Mar 6, 2012 11:22am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Mar 6, 2012 11:41 AM
BoatShoes;1106805 wrote:Requiring health insurance companies that provide health insurance to catholic employers to cover the cost of birth control as part of preventative coverage for women does not violate the first amendment. The Free Exercise Clause does not prohibit the federal government or the state's from passing facially neutral laws that incidentally impact certain religious practices or conduct.
I LOL'ed. Really hard, too. :cool:
Mar 6, 2012 11:41am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Mar 6, 2012 11:46 AM
gut;1106829 wrote:Prevent what, exactly? STD's? While condoms may be slightly less effective, they are superior on the STD front. Yet I don't hear anyone claiming condoms should be covered. And you don't need to cover a doctor's visit to prescribe condoms. From a purely objective and economical standpoint, and health perspective, condoms would be the superior choice to cover. I have a bit of an issue with mandating HOW something should be treated, especially when that mandate supports an inferior and more costly alternative.
Um I don't know a pregancy perhaps?

Women having access to the pill has been one of the greatest things for women in the history of the world. There is evidence that the pill alone has been as much as 30% responsible for the convergence between men and women's wages. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~baileymj/Opt_In_Revolution.pdf

Allowing women to delay childbearing with the benefit of the pill has allowed women to become productive members of the workforce. Furthermore, there is evidence that publicly subsidizing the pill saves the taxpayer a ton of money...way more than subsidizing condoms or public abstinence campaigns. http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2012/03_unplanned_pregnancy_thomas.aspx

The government subsidizes and awful lot of stupid things. Subsidizing planned and responsible pregnancies is probably one of the better things it might subsidize.

People are so upset about the government subsidizing this special windfall for women and telling private companies what to do...why don't we go ahead and get rid of maternity leave while we're at it? After all a working woman chooses to get pregnant doesn't she? She knew the risks that she might not be able to perform her job? Are employers and taxpayers paying for women to have sex because they get maternity leave?

If we're going to have a largely privately run health insurance system, requiring insurers to subsidize the pill is constitutional and it makes good fiscal and public health sense.
Mar 6, 2012 11:46am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Mar 6, 2012 11:50 AM
BoatShoes;1106870 wrote: If we're going to have a largely privately run health insurance system, requiring insurers to subsidize the pill is constitutional and it makes good fiscal and public health sense.
Letting the marketplace decide makes more sense, as usual. If this is a real issue and not one made up for political grandstanding purposes (rhetorical: it isn't), those companies who choose not to cover those things desired by the public will adjust or fail. I know it grinds the gears of some that this simple concept works, which is just a bonus.
Mar 6, 2012 11:50am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Mar 6, 2012 12:01 PM
queencitybuckeye;1106874 wrote:Letting the marketplace decide makes more sense, as usual.
Actually no. It's been pretty evident since at least 1963 that healthcare markets do not function like markets for bread or t.v's. In fact, there is strong evidence that public intervention in the marketplace through the subsidization of the pill has made life better for women, reduced crime and made society more healthy as a whole than if access to the pill was wholly reliant on an unregulated market.

You should checkout: Kenneth Arrow's "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care"
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf

But I mean it's not as if you care about the reality of health care access and delivery because "the market is best" is true for you a priori and you don't care about real world events. It's not like you would even consider taking a more nuanced position.
Mar 6, 2012 12:01pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Mar 6, 2012 12:04 PM
BoatShoes;1106870 wrote:Um I don't know a pregancy perhaps?
So condoms don't work? What about abstinence? Maybe if the pill is covered by insurance women can start paying for dinner more :laugh:
BoatShoes;1106870 wrote:There is evidence that the pill alone has been as much as 30% responsible for the convergence between men and women's wages. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~baileymj/Opt_In_Revolution.pdf
coughcoughBULLSHITcoughcough

BoatShoes;1106870 wrote:The government subsidizes and awful lot of stupid things.
THAT"S your justification? Realy?!? My god, it would probably be cheaper just to GIVE women a tax credit then

BoatShoes;1106870 wrote:People are so upset about the government subsidizing this special windfall for women and telling private companies what to do...why don't we go ahead and get rid of maternity leave while we're at it? After all a working woman chooses to get pregnant doesn't she? She knew the risks that she might not be able to perform her job? Are employers and taxpayers paying for women to have sex because they get maternity leave?
That argument is completely irrelevant. It is in society's interest for people to have children - population growth drives economic growth. Maternity leave varies by company and it is up to THE COMPANY what sort of benefit they want to offer, in no small part influenced by what the competition offers.
Mar 6, 2012 12:04pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Mar 6, 2012 12:06 PM
BoatShoes;1106904 wrote:Actually no. It's been pretty evident since at least 1963 that healthcare markets do not function like markets for bread or t.v's. In fact, there is strong evidence that public intervention in the marketplace through the subsidization of the pill has made life better for women, reduced crime and made society more healthy as a whole than if access to the pill was wholly reliant on an unregulated market.
Wow. That's quite the little magic pill. Sounds like maybe men should be taking it, too.
Mar 6, 2012 12:06pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Mar 6, 2012 12:13 PM
BoatShoes;1106904 wrote:It's not like you would even consider taking a more nuanced position.
If I'm you, that means formulating a result and working backward to provide evidence in the form of widely discredited papers written by partisan hacks.
Mar 6, 2012 12:13pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Mar 6, 2012 12:26 PM
Footwedge;1106318 wrote:This article from one of the best conservative writers of all time.....George, as usual, hammer meets nail on head..

.
"They want to bomb Iran, but they are afraid of Rush Limbaugh".

Best line...


ABC’s George Will told me Sunday on “This Week” that GOP leaders have steered clear of harshly denouncing Limbaugh’s comments because “Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
“[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” Will said. “And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd said the Republicans’ apprehension to say anything negative about the conservative big hitter is based on the “myth” that Limbaugh influences a large number of Republican voters.
“I think the problem is the Republican leaders, Mitt Romney and the other candidates, don’t have the courage to say what they say in quiet, which, they think Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon,” Dowd said. ”They think he is like a clown coming out of a small car at a circus. It’s great he is entertaining and all that. But nobody takes him seriously.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...rush-limbaugh/
That's garbage. Boehner and the boys are more afraid of the Matthew Dowds, George Stephanopolous's, Bob Schiefer's etc etc of the world than they are Rush.
stlouiedipalma;1106399 wrote:The First Amendment gives Rush the freedom to say what he wants, within reason. What is laughable to me is how, without fail, every single Republican who dares criticize him goes back a day later, tail between legs, and apologizes. If that doesn't prove his position of de facto leader of the Republican Party (and most of you here on the OC), then I don't know what does. He's your guy, plain and simple. Instead of throwing stones elsewhere, you defenders of the faith need to just own up to it and admit that he is your lord and savior.
See fish's quote below:
fish82;1106610 wrote:I'm starting to think that you actually believe that there are 20 million people out there who sit by the radio for 3 hours each day furiously taking notes and orders from HIM. Highly snortworthy. But if it will make you happy....

Rush, you big fat meanie. How dare you call the lying left-wing activist posing as a poor downtrodden college student that filthy name. Bad Rush....Bad!!!

How's that? We cool then?

Let's do this...when you and your ilk start getting your panties twisted and creating a National Crisis when Ed Schultz calls women sluts, then come talk to me.

When you start creating a National Crisis when Bill Maher goes down the exact same road Every. Single. ****ing. Show......then come talk to me.

Until then...Snort. Sorry.
You nailed it. If the left really gave a crap about women's rights and misogyny and eliminating vile and offensive rhetoric regarding women, then Bill Maher, Ed the Red Shultz, Keith Olbermann, and Jon Stewart would be greeters at Wal-Mart right now.
Mar 6, 2012 12:26pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Mar 6, 2012 1:16 PM
BoatShoes;1106805 wrote:Requiring health insurance companies that provide health insurance to catholic employers to cover the cost of birth control as part of preventative coverage for women does not violate the first amendment. The Free Exercise Clause does not prohibit the federal government or the state's from passing facially neutral laws that incidentally impact certain religious practices or conduct.
False, looking at the "extreme" the government would not be allowed, by the 1st Amendment, to say "all US citizens can not pray to Buddha (insert any other religous god here)"

That would be a blanket nuetral law that incidentally impacts religious practices. It is just a more 'extreme' case than the one we are talking about.

However, BOTH violate the 1st Amendment.
Mar 6, 2012 1:16pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Mar 6, 2012 1:49 PM
No.to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

...and so the prime example of why it is bad that government be involved at all....why Obamakare should be repealed as fast as possible. Already in its infancy it has politicized medicine with its eliitst mandates, interfered in the insurance industry by dictating what can or cannot be covered, changed the relationship of the employee/employer marketplace.

Is this what we really want? ugh. As mentioned before....I can see the lobbyists lining up to get mandates for the next 'good' cause.
Mar 6, 2012 1:49pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Mar 6, 2012 2:32 PM
Thank you Mr. Gingrich for standing up to the radical left and their elitist media, and defending the Catholic Church, and all religions, from the assault of this, the most arrogant and dictatorial presidency in U.S. history:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/gingrich-rips-david-gregory-for-making-limbaugh-the-great-national-crisis-of-this-week-video/
Mar 6, 2012 2:32pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Mar 6, 2012 4:49 PM
jmog;1107012 wrote:False, looking at the "extreme" the government would not be allowed, by the 1st Amendment, to say "all US citizens can not pray to Buddha (insert any other religous god here)"

That would be a blanket nuetral law that incidentally impacts religious practices. It is just a more 'extreme' case than the one we are talking about.

However, BOTH violate the 1st Amendment.
That would not be considered a facially neutral law with a wholly secular purpose. According to Scalia the law is going to be valid if it doesn't target a particular religious. Outlawing "praying to X" is targeting a particular religious practice. As in Church of Lukumi case, the court found that the city tried to make a generally applicable law but were really just targeting the particular religious practice of animal slaughter that was employed by this church that was annoying to the city officials.

It is very clear under modern 1st amendment jurisprudence promulgated by the Rhenquist Court and in opinions articulated by Conservative justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia that the contraception mandate does not violate the first amendment. It wouldn't even be a close case; especially considering the "accommodation" provided by the Obama Administration.
Mar 6, 2012 4:49pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Mar 6, 2012 6:40 PM
ABC’s George Will told me Sunday on “This Week” that GOP leaders have steered clear of harshly denouncing Limbaugh’s comments because “Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
“[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” Will said. “And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd said the Republicans’ apprehension to say anything negative about the conservative big hitter is based on the “myth” that Limbaugh influences a large number of Republican voters.
“I think the problem is the Republican leaders, Mitt Romney and the other candidates, don’t have the courage to say what they say in quiet, which, they think Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon,” Dowd said. ”They think he is like a clown coming out of a small car at a circus. It’s great he is entertaining and all that. But nobody takes him seriously.”


jhay78;1106955 wrote:That's garbage. Boehner and the boys are more afraid of the Matthew Dowds, George Stephanopolous's, Bob Schiefer's etc etc of the world than they are Rush.
Send George Will a memo and tell him his conservative view on the subject is garbage. A conservative calling out the fatman for the scum that he is...difficult for many to accept on these boards, I know.


You nailed it. If the left really gave a crap about women's rights and misogyny and eliminating vile and offensive rhetoric regarding women, then Bill Maher, Ed the Red Shultz, Keith Olbermann, and Jon Stewart would be greeters at Wal-Mart right now.
The subject matter....Rush Limbaugh...calling this woman a slut and a whore....let's stay on topic...shall we? If those lefties have stated misoginyst things, and I don't doubt that they have, then start a thread about them.

Being a true independent, I don't defend anybody that is off target with what they spew. But what is pure entertainment, at least for me, is the unbridled refusal for people like you, and my buddy Fishy who simply can't bring themselves to criticize the AM dial god that they worship.

Kudos to George Will...for breaking ranks and calling a spade a spade.
Mar 6, 2012 6:40pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Mar 6, 2012 7:17 PM
Footwedge;1107386 wrote:ABC’s George Will told me Sunday on “This Week” that GOP leaders have steered clear of harshly denouncing Limbaugh’s comments because “Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
“[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” Will said. “And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”
ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd said the Republicans’ apprehension to say anything negative about the conservative big hitter is based on the “myth” that Limbaugh influences a large number of Republican voters.
“I think the problem is the Republican leaders, Mitt Romney and the other candidates, don’t have the courage to say what they say in quiet, which, they think Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon,” Dowd said. ”They think he is like a clown coming out of a small car at a circus. It’s great he is entertaining and all that. But nobody takes him seriously.”





Send George Will a memo and tell him his conservative view on the subject is garbage. A conservative calling out the fatman for the scum that he is...difficult for many to accept on these boards, I know.





The subject matter....Rush Limbaugh...calling this woman a slut and a whore....let's stay on topic...shall we? If those lefties have stated misoginyst things, and I don't doubt that they have, then start a thread about them.

Being a true independent, I don't defend anybody that is off target with what they spew. But what is pure entertainment, at least for me, is the unbridled refusal for people like you, and my buddy Fishy who simply can't bring themselves to criticize the AM dial god that they worship.

Kudos to George Will...for breaking ranks and calling a spade a spade.
Ready, pay attention:

"I jhay78, hereby criticize Rush for his comments and use of the word slut to describe a feminist activist."

I know that won't be good enough for you and others, but neither will Rush's apology. They won't be happy until he and every talk show host with a contrary opinion is silenced.

Really, you don't doubt those other commentators have said misogynist things? You yourself have quoted Maher to make a point in past threads. If we started a thread every time they said something worse than Rush did, we would be very busy indeed.
Mar 6, 2012 7:17pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Mar 6, 2012 8:11 PM
Footwedge;1107386 wrote: The subject matter....Rush Limbaugh...calling this woman a slut and a whore....let's stay on topic...shall we? If those lefties have stated misoginyst things, and I don't doubt that they have, then start a thread about them.

Being a true independent, I don't defend anybody that is off target with what they spew. But what is pure entertainment, at least for me, is the unbridled refusal for people like you, and my buddy Fishy who simply can't bring themselves to criticize the AM dial god that they worship.
Do you ever get tired of speaking in hyperbole? Is it exhausting, or do you just get used to it after awhile? If you'd read, you'd see that I did in fact give Rush a "shame on you." ;)

And you won't likely see a thread on Schultz or Maher, because unlike you people, we don't foam at the mouth every time talking heads say stuff that bothers us. The point is not that OC'ers start threads discussing misogyny by others...the point is the no one anywhere ever brings it up. There is never any outrage...by anyone. That doesn't strike you as the least bit odd? Don't answer...we already know the answer...you're 100% Limbaugh 24/7. Seek help, Bro. :cool:

I'll remember your "I don't defend anybody" schtick the next time you quote Bill Maher.
Mar 6, 2012 8:11pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Mar 6, 2012 8:45 PM
"The government subsidizes and awful lot of stupid things. Subsidizing planned and responsible pregnancies is probably one of the better things it might subsidize. "

This isn't just a subsidy, it is government interference in a contract between one private entity (and employer with more than 50 employees) and another (an insurance provider), and the interference is unnecessary as there are plenty of options to purchase a separate policy or (heavens forbid) pay $400 a year for the pill.

When has the federal government intruded so much into a private contract between private entities to the point that it MANDATES a service. The federal government is typically there to protect rights, and restrict what people/entities can do if it violates such right (hence, anti-discrimination laws, which are based in the Constitution), can you name an instance in the past when the feds wielded its power to mandate behavior rather than restricting behavior? Under what federal authority does it have that power.

As QCB mentioned above, this is nothing more than political grandstanding - women's health has nothing to do with it, insuring payola from the radical "women's rights" groups (as if they actually care about women's rights, they care about money and power) has everything to do with it.
Mar 6, 2012 8:45pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Mar 6, 2012 9:44 PM
jhay78;1107417 wrote:Ready, pay attention:

"I jhay78, hereby criticize Rush for his comments and use of the word slut to describe a feminist activist."

Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.....
I know that won't be good enough for you and others, but neither will Rush's apology. They won't be happy until he and every talk show host with a contrary opinion is silenced
That is bullcrap. I have never said anything about silencing free speech. What I have said is that there are consequences for exercizing free speech in a horrible manner. As for Limbaugh's apology...get real.
Really, you don't doubt those other commentators have said misogynist things? You yourself have quoted Maher to make a point in past threads. If we started a thread every time they said something worse than Rush did, we would be very busy indeed.
I've quoted Bill Maher? Really? When? I would never quote Bill Maher to "make a point". In fact, I would never quote Bill Maher for anything. There never would be a reason for me to do so.
Mar 6, 2012 9:44pm