Rush Limbaugh's apology doesn't change anything

Started by garbon, March 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
User actions

CountDeMoney

#30
March 05, 2012, 05:03:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2012, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: Kleves on March 05, 2012, 04:38:03 PM
Limbaugh is even more of a doofus than I thought. Still, things couldn't have possibly gone any better for this Fluke chick. She wanted to manufacture some controversy and, by god, she got it.

SHe wanted to manufacture controversy? What does that mean?

She certainly wanted to illustrate something she found unfair - is that "manufacturing controversy"?

Kind of like that Rosa Parks, and her manufacturing controversy by refusing to sit where she belonged?

No kidding.  Like being called forward for Congressional testimony was all a nefarious plot by her to put contraception on the front pages!

Jacob

#31
March 05, 2012, 05:08:02 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on March 05, 2012, 03:00:05 PM
I don't know whether fluke is a slut, but she sure is a commie and unamerican for asking uncle sam to put his hands in my pocket to pay for her sex life. :glare:

Uncle Sam is paying? I thought this whole brouhaha was about a handful of religious organizations whining that they shouldn't be forced to provide medical care to their employees if they have "moral" reasons not to.

So what is it? Oppressing poor innocent believers or wasting tax payer money?

derspiess

#32
March 05, 2012, 05:08:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
She should start her own PR firm.

I think she pretty much has. 
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

garbon

#33
March 05, 2012, 05:09:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 05:08:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
She should start her own PR firm.

I think she pretty much has. 

Do you know what a PR firm is? :unsure:
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

derspiess

#34
March 05, 2012, 05:11:21 PM
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

garbon

#35
March 05, 2012, 05:18:40 PM
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

crazy canuck

#36
March 05, 2012, 05:31:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 05:18:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 05:11:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 05:09:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 05:08:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2012, 04:43:29 PM
She should start her own PR firm.

I think she pretty much has. 

Do you know what a PR firm is? :unsure:

Yes.

Your post suggested otherwise. :(

Another possibilty is he knowingly posted an incorrect statement.  The fun part is you get to pick which one it was.

Valmy

#37
March 05, 2012, 05:35:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2012, 03:25:10 PMNo, that isn't the point at all - it is not the job of the state to attempt to manage birth rates via subsidized birth control, at least not in the USA.

I was talking about the specific point mentioned.

And it is not a requirement for the state to do this.  But last I checked the state can subsidize all sorts of positive behaviors that it feels are advantageous.  Lots of unwanted children, particularly of the teenage pregnancy variety and so forth, are a big burden on the state.  It just makes sense that if people want to do something voluntarily that benefits society the state can encourage that behavior.  It does in tons of other cases so why not this one?  Ergo this is good policy, helping people who willingly want to do positive behaviors that lessen the burden on the state to provide other services down the road.  It is not some attempt to subsidize bad sex habits which is absurd.

Unless there is coercion about it, where people's freedom is limited in some way, I guess I fail to see why it is unamerican to do a policy that is similar to hundreds of other policies we are already doing.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Kleves

#38
March 05, 2012, 05:40:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2012, 05:00:50 PM
SHe wanted to manufacture controversy? What does that mean?
The Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee invited her to speak at the hearing on religious freedom (or whatever), but she was not allowed to testify because she didn't want to talk about religious freedom, but about birth control (another, on-topic, Democratic speaker was allowed to testify). The Democrats were then able to accuse the Republicans of excluding women from the hearing and Nancy Pelosi convened an "unofficial" hearing to listen to her complain about Republican "censorship." I see this as deliberately orchestrated "controversy." The Democrats wanted to spin the whole thing a certain way, and this "censorship" allowed them to do so. The Limbaugh thing has just been gravy.
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

Valmy

#39
March 05, 2012, 05:40:41 PM Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 05:45:33 PM by Valmy
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
Yeah was that a troll by V? :hmm:

I thought I was addressing a post saying it was wrong to subsidize access to women's reproductive health services at all.  I am a little puzzled my position, which is what I thought we have already been doing, is a troll.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

garbon

#40
March 05, 2012, 05:45:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2012, 05:40:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
Yeah was that a troll by V? :hmm:

I thought I was addressing a post saying it was wrong to subsidize access to women's reproductive health services at all.

Your post did advocate for the government to take policies to make sure too many children weren't born. Not many positive ways to look at that.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

garbon

#41
March 05, 2012, 05:48:31 PM
Quote from: Kleves on March 05, 2012, 05:40:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2012, 05:00:50 PM
SHe wanted to manufacture controversy? What does that mean?
The Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee invited her to speak at the hearing on religious freedom (or whatever), but she was not allowed to testify because she didn't want to talk about religious freedom, but about birth control (another, on-topic, Democratic speaker was allowed to testify). The Democrats were then able to accuse the Republicans of excluding women from the hearing and Nancy Pelosi convened an "unofficial" hearing to listen to her complain about Republican "censorship." I see this as deliberately orchestrated "controversy." The Democrats wanted to spin the whole thing a certain way, and this "censorship" allowed them to do so. The Limbaugh thing has just been gravy.

http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=13485

QuoteLeader Pelosi called the hearing in response to the refusal of Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to allow Fluke to testify at last week's hearing "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"

In an unusual move, Chairman Issa did not allow the Democratic minority to have a single witness at last week's hearing, allowing testimony only from those opposed to the Obama Administration's decision on women's contraception to testify. The hearing's primary panel did not include a single woman, prompting Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) to ask "Where are the Women?"

I don't think a party gets to claim the moral high ground when it holds such a ridiculous hearing. :rolleyes:
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Jacob

#42
March 05, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: Kleves on March 05, 2012, 05:40:08 PM
The Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee invited her to speak at the hearing on religious freedom (or whatever), but she was not allowed to testify because she didn't want to talk about religious freedom, but about birth control (another, on-topic, Democratic speaker was allowed to testify). The Democrats were then able to accuse the Republicans of excluding women from the hearing and Nancy Pelosi convened an "unofficial" hearing to listen to her complain about Republican "censorship." I see this as deliberately orchestrated "controversy." The Democrats wanted to spin the whole thing a certain way, and this "censorship" allowed them to do so. The Limbaugh thing has just been gravy.

Not really. It's the Republicans who are orchestrating a controversy about what you so accurately call "religious freedom or whatever".

Valmy

#43
March 05, 2012, 06:03:15 PM Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 06:17:37 PM by Valmy
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 05:45:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2012, 05:40:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
Yeah was that a troll by V? :hmm:

I thought I was addressing a post saying it was wrong to subsidize access to women's reproductive health services at all.

Your post did advocate for the government to take policies to make sure too many children weren't born. Not many positive ways to look at that.

Why is it not a positive to help ensure the people having children are those who want to have them and raise them? 

Edit: And actually I was not advocating that so much as saying this is why we subsidize that stuff to begin with.  Since I think cheap and dependable birth control is so vital, having the government subsidize it would probably ensure that both come later rather than sooner.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Neil

#44
March 05, 2012, 06:11:05 PM
How is it that AOL is even able to advertise anymore?  Are Americans so stupid and pathetic that they're still using AOL?
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
User actions