In your face, comrade!

[Doug S.]

But wait, there is more.........

******

Rush Limbaugh issued an apology today for calling Sandra Fluke a prostitute and a slut after she testified before Congress on women's health care.

Originally Posted by lonesomebob
McCarthy, Limbaugh, Beck, and Breitbart, all men who have brought to light things the establishment media wouldn't touch.

Wll, you are right there, no one else would touch this.

I've read Limbaugh's apology, it is difficult to view it as sincere. He sounds much like most criminals, who seldom feel what they did was wrong but whose only regret is getting caught.

As for the lost advertisers, he says they can and will be replaced soon, claims he refuses plenty of advertisers every year and there are plenty to step up and take the lost companies in his lineup. Let's hope he's as wrong about that as (IMHO) he is about his political agendas.

You know, after reading LB's comments you quoted above, I hate to admit that I agree with him in one respect:...he's right, "nobody else" would touch the topics promoted by those listed above, but IMHO that is because "everybody else" knows that the positions supported by the parties mentioned by LB are untenable and that the majority of the public would scoff at them, much as did my daughter when she heard Limbaugh's radio show at 12 years of age.

Limbaugh is every bit as much a shock jock as is Howard Stern, his only mistake here was not sticking to politics. Stern does "sex" SO MUCH better, Limbaugh was a fool (but, then, we know that) to have attempted to jump genres...as a political shock-jock, he's sometimes entertaining, most times just laughable for the unbelievable positions he supports.

I'll join the anti-Limbaugh advertisement organization you mentioned, Jim. LB can continue to support Limbaugh, as I'm sure he will, and he'll just have to suffer the "guilt by association" that goes with that choice. I can think of little I'd like more than to see Limbaugh banned from the airwaves...perhaps a few million complaints to the FCC might help speed up that eventual reality.

Naaaaahhh.....this is America, home of "freedom of speech", and our supreme court has determined that protection extends to even those issues which we find extremely objectional. We Americans have to accept (even if we don't support) the bad with the good, all in the interest of freedom, but sometimes it seems just wrong, doesn't it?

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Pat]

I think Mr. Limbaugh managed to turn this into (as he is wont to do) an issue about himself while providing cover for the administration to obscure the core issue as to the legitimacy of a government mandate on a Catholic institution to provide the free discretionary availability of the abortion “morning after” pill, sterilization and contraception in contravention of their core beliefs. Limbaugh has also made Ms Fluke a celebrity victim with his vitriol. He unwittingly became the media patsy and poster boy for the emerging Democrat campaign storyline that (according to Democratic Party Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz) is the GOP "anti-women" agenda and "a war on women". (She is also depriving some village of an idiot - sorry, I couldn't help myself)
The U.S. Catholic Bishops have indicated they will shut down their institutions before they violate their core beliefs. So all the name calling has obscured the fundamental question never asked Ms Fluke, “Is compelling a Catholic University to provide free abortion/sterilization/contraception more important than that institution remaining open and providing the academic services (TO INCLUDE YOUR LAW DEGREE)?” She may well be remembered as the liberal that shut down Georgetown University. I also suspect Ms Fluke will not be a big alumni contributor and we will certainly see her in the public eye again.
Catholic health care facilities form the largest not-for-profit health service sector in the United States, caring for nearly one-sixth of all U.S. hospital patients each year. Total Catholic school student enrollment for the current academic year is 2,065,872. Minority student enrollment is 624,878 which is 30.2% of the total enrollment. 43.0% of the schools are still in urban/inner city locales despite population losses and great financial difficulties in maintaining them. Non-Catholic enrollment is 307,458 which is 14.9% of the total enrollment.
It is frightening to consider the impact if they all shut down. And all this to provide a campaign slogan. Generic birth control pills may be purchased with a prescription at a drugstore or clinic. According to Planned Parenthood, they cost about $15–$50 a month. Not a lot for someone such as Ms Fluke that pays $62,000 a year in tuition.

 

[Jeff Young]

You got the constitutional analysis there wrong my friend. The case law on this is pretty clear. A facially neutral regulation (like one requiring all employers to offer contraceptives as part of an employer sponsored health care plan) that has an incidental impact on a religion does not violate the free exercise clause.

This is why you can't refuse necessary child care to your kid on religious grounds, or claim that Sunday Blue Laws violate your right to conduct business on Sunday force you to do so on SAturday (the Sabbath) -- actual case brought by Jewish merchants.

There is no constitutional violation here. If Catholic facilities want to engage in commerce like schools and hospitals they need to play by the same rules as everyone else (and I come from a Catholic family). Bizarre ideas on contraception do not trump the law. On the other hand, they are free to practice those bizarre ideas on contraception in their churches and schools.

Last, still waiting for you or Pete to say directly and squarely to Bob that posts that start off "In your face comrade" and that claim folks like Andrew Breitbart are heroes ARE not civil, and are not an attempt to engage in rational debate. Is it really that hard to do that?

 

[Doug S.]

But wait, there is more.........

******

Rush Limbaugh issued an apology today for calling Sandra Fluke a prostitute and a slut after she testified before Congress on women's health care.

Remember, this "apology" only occurs after three more days of Limbaugh slut shaming Ms. Fluke, insulting her parents and saying that Fluke should make a ****pornographic movie for his titillation****.

On the fourth day, after a public outcry and the loss of at least six national sponsorships, Mr. Limbaugh now regrets his choice of words. This was too little, way too late. Especially since Mr. Limbaugh has a long history of offensive and vulgar comments.

*****

Limbaugh's "apology" was crouched in hatred for his political opposition, and IMHO was just forwarded in order to gain another opportunity to call "liberals" names. Here is the quote:

"I descended to [the left's] level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke," Limbaugh said.

How many of us who do not subscribe to the Conservative agenda have engaged in such reprehensible language, even on this forum, much less in a broadcast on public radio?

How dare Limbaugh represent [the left('s)] to be the originators of the slurs he uttered?

I'll tell you how he dared--he's a nut case. Too much Oxycontin, too little tolerance for anyone who dares to disagree with his opinions, and WAAAY too large a narcisistic disorder.

We'd be better off as a society without his kind (MHO), regardless of whichever political philosophy they support. He's no longer funny, just a pitiful reminder of his long past glory days.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

There is no constitutional violation here. If Catholic facilities want to engage in commerce like schools and hospitals they need to play by the same rules as everyone else (and I come from a Catholic family). Bizarre ideas on contraception do not trump the law. On the other hand, they are free to practice those bizarre ideas on contraception in their churches and schools.

Great analysis, Jeff. The Catholic church has a long history of defining and controlling acceptable behavior from it's adherents. If the government were to extend the requirement that Catholic organizations were subject to the same requirements as other employers, they could still exert their considerable control over their employees, as well as their students and other adherents, to prohibit them from using the benefit, thereby reducing if not eliminating the issue.

...but let's be honest....the vast majority of Catholics with whom I am acquainted DO use contraception, obviously against the wishes of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church sees their influence over the younger generations as diminished and now petitions the government for an exemption so that the government becomes the administrative agent of refusal, not the church. How nice........

Next we'll be hearing that grocery stores and restaurants must cease and desist from selling meat on Fridays and insist that only fish be sold, else the Catholics will pick up their toys and go play elsewhere :thumbsdown: .

Let 'em go, I say....:idea:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[craig]

This whole contraceptive conversation is cute and fun on a gt40 forum..but being of top interest on or nations stage is an utter joke..
I can't get over the fact that our nation is on its knees and our media is pushing and thrusting this crap at us.....amazing

 

[craig]

You got the constitutional analysis there wrong my friend. The case law on this is pretty clear. A facially neutral regulation (like one requiring all employers to offer contraceptives as part of an employer sponsored health care plan) that has an incidental impact on a religion does not violate the free exercise clause.

This is why you can't refuse necessary child care to your kid on religious grounds, or claim that Sunday Blue Laws violate your right to conduct business on Sunday force you to do so on SAturday (the Sabbath) -- actual case brought by Jewish merchants.

There is no constitutional violation here. If Catholic facilities want to engage in commerce like schools and hospitals they need to play by the same rules as everyone else (and I come from a Catholic family). Bizarre ideas on contraception do not trump the law. On the other hand, they are free to practice those bizarre ideas on contraception in their churches and schools.

Last, still waiting for you or Pete to say directly and squarely to Bob that posts that start off "In your face comrade" and that claim folks like Andrew Breitbart are heroes ARE not civil, and are not an attempt to engage in rational debate. Is it really that hard to do that?

Listen Jeff....I just went back and reread all the posts in this thread, and guess what Bob's the civil one in this discussion and its the libs that are doing all the name calling...check it out I'm right.. sooo really whats your beef?

 

[Bob Fechter]

First off, let's understand who Sandra Fluke really is. Namely, she is a thirty year old long time liberal activist. Not only is she involved in the contraception debacle, but she is involved in lawsuits to make non coverage of "gender reassaignment" by employer benefits to be sexual discrimination.

Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance | MRCTV

As far as Mr Limbaugh goes, part of his presentation is to highlight the double standard of how a Conservative woman is treated by the media as opposed to a liberal woman.

I've heard it said that "body parts aren't enough" to warrant their defense by women's groups.
Of course what that means is you can say ANYTHING about Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin etc., but don't you dare call a left wing political activist anything worse than an amazon.

p.s., In respect for doug's bizarre little charade, would someone please quote this so doug won't pee himself by not being able to answer.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Here's a little back lash that I think a lot of feminists will begin experience as their attempts at the destruction of the traditional family backfire!

How my mother's fanatical feminist views tore us apart, by the daughter of The Color Purple author | Mail Online

 

[Mike]

Here we have a person who just gave Obozo $1,000,000 and says things far nastier than El Rushbo ever has. Please don't let your hypocrisy hit you in the azz on the way out libtards lol.

Will Obama Super PAC Return Misogynist Bill Maher's Million-Dollar Donation? | The Weekly Standard

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

No one is taking a personal swipe at Bob. Well, I'm not.

I'm just saying that a thread called "In your face, comrade" is exactly the kind of thing you should be opposed to right, given your post above?

Trying to put your words in my mouth Jeff?

 

[Jeff Young]

Trying to put your words in my mouth Jeff?

No, just asking you to practice what you preach. You've got 3 posts above using words like "libtard" and defending calling Ms Fluke a "slut." This is your chance to jump in and point out that we need civility on both sides (we do).

 

[Jeff Young]

Sure, quoted. So Ms. Fluke's political speech means she should be subjected to being called a slut and told that she should film her sex acts for Rushbo to watch?

Interesting.

First off, let's understand who Sandra Fluke really is. Namely, she is a thirty year old long time liberal activist. Not only is she involved in the contraception debacle, but she is involved in lawsuits to make non coverage of "gender reassaignment" by employer benefits to be sexual discrimination.

Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance | MRCTV

As far as Mr Limbaugh goes, part of his presentation is to highlight the double standard of how a Conservative woman is treated by the media as opposed to a liberal woman.

I've heard it said that "body parts aren't enough" to warrant their defense by women's groups.
Of course what that means is you can say ANYTHING about Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin etc., but don't you dare call a left wing political activist anything worse than an amazon.

p.s., In respect for doug's bizarre little charade, would someone please quote this so doug won't pee himself by not being able to answer.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

No, just asking you to practice what you preach. You've got 3 posts above using words like "libtard" and defending calling Ms Fluke a "slut." This is your chance to jump in and point out that we need civility on both sides (we do).

I thought I had already done that in post #28. Maybe you should re-read it.
Anyway life is too short to worry about this crap.

 

[Doug S.]

Sure, quoted.

Thanks, Jeff.

It's always interesting to see what sort of demons are rambling around in LB's head....he's definitely a study in excess on that issue!

In this case, it seems he's been attacked by a case of "sour grapes"...and, of course, all you can make out of sour grapes is a batch of bad "whine" :cry:!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Jim Craik]

Jeff,

I'm afraid that for the most part the conservatives are wedded to this type of discourse.

This thread started with Mr Fechter saying that Mr Breitbart was a hero and a great American. I strongly disagree, he was as un-American as you can get. Formenting hate, editing videos to miss reprisent the truth.......vicious personel attacks.

I condemed Mr Brietbart, Mr Oberman, Ms Maddow, Mr Limbaugh and Mr Beck, thay all do it and none of them are heros and none of them are good for America.

I asked if anyone was OK with being lied to? Is anyone OK with being miss lead?

No one answered.

I posted a vicious personal attack by Mr Linbaugh on a person who had the nerve to comment on health care.

Veek, I was very disapointed, you did not condemn the incredably vicious attack, you only gave the reasons why it was OK for Mr Limbaugh to attack this lady. Thats not enough.

Pete.........YOUR POST #28 "Maybe we could start on this forum? Just a thought" THAT IS NOT A CONDEMNATION! That is not enough.

The rest just used the old defence the "the left is worse".

The left may be worse, the right may be worse, I do not care, this is all wrong. Starting threads Like this does not make for discussion, using hate filled retoric does not make for dicussion, it only leads to hate.

***********************

I STRONGLY CONDEMN ALL OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!


Mr Fechter, I'll ask again, are Mr Oberman and Ms Maddow great American Heros, or do you draw the line. Only one sided, missleading liers that you agree with are heros?


Craig, Pete, Veek, Michael, Mr Fechter, I know you condem the Left for this, do any of you condemn the Right? Do any of you condem Mr Limbaugh?

 

[Pat]

"...that has an incidental impact on a religion does not violate the free exercise clause." QUOTE]

Apparently the Catholic bishops see being forced to provide abortion, sterilization and contraception in violation of a core tenant of their faith far more than "incidental". I also think that comparing child care to abortion/sterilization/contraception an absurd rationalization. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Recently in both United States v Morrison and United States v Lopez, the Supreme Court of the United States held a statute to be unconstitutional because it exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose. But you are saying that overrides the First Amendment which in part says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Gee I hope not. It is clear that any government that has unlimited power to regulate all activity by its citizens is a totalitarian government. Even if some leaders of such governments act with restraint, the power remains available to unscrupulous and power-hungry leaders. And by now I'm sure you are aware of my low regard for big government (and big institutions in general).

As for your other issue. The is a great book out there by Dr. Eric Berne titled "Games People Play". It was a best seller and still in print. One of the games is titled "Let's You and Him Fight". The book suggests that games interfere with relationships and ultimately end up in win-lose/zero-sum propositions. I simply don't want to play. Nobody needs defending or persecution here. It is amazing and at times almost comical to me how effectively Bob is able to get under your skin. As one of the nuns in elementary school told me, "you can't control the world but you can decide how you react to it".

Jim, I didn't think that my referring to Mr. Limbaugh as a self-absorbed patsy as being particularly favorable. Read my past posts, I have been more than critical of all the vitriol, both left and right.

 

[Jeff Young]

Nope.

A facially neutral regulation -- that does not prevent the free exercise of religion -- and that is within Congress's commerce clause or general welfare powers is enforceable.

We pass laws all the time that require religious folk to do things they would prefer not to. So long as the law is not directed at any particular religion and does not prevent true free exercise (and this regulatin does not, Catholics can still teach no contraception, counsel against it, etc.), no consitutional violation.

Bob doesn't get under my skin. He just says a lot of purposefully incendiary things. It's really unclear to me why you and Pete are so adverse to telling him that what he posts isn't civil, and doesn't add to the debate (or this MHNCO character).

Here, I'll make it easy. Just cut and past:

"Bob, starting a thread with 'in your face comrade' and holding up Andrew Breitbart as a hero doesn't advance the debate and isn't very civil. MHNCO, it's not very civil to call people you are having a discussion with 'libtards.' In the interest of civil debate, I'd appreciate it you would stop doing that."

See? Pretty simply. And here's the kicker -- when this type of admonishment comes from someone who they generally agree with, they are far more likely to listen to it.

Give it a try sometime.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jim, I didn't think that my referring to Mr. Limbaugh as a self-absorbed patsy as being particularly favorable. Read my past posts, I have been more than critical of all the vitriol, both left and right.<!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=ignore) -->

Posted by Veek

Veek, Donald Trump is a "self-absorbed patsy"

Mr Limbaugh is much much more than that. He is a deceitful, hate filled lier, willing to say anything, destroy anyone for massive short term gains.

Veek go back and read what Mr Limbaugh said about someone who had the nerve to speak about health care.

If you agree with what she said is not the issue here.

Veek if he had said those things about your daughter, would "self absorbed patsy" be your only comment?

 

[Bob Fechter]

A single college girl spending a thousand dollars a year on contraception is not the daughter I raised, and she is a much healthier person for it.