Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed by the media...

[Not2BSubjugated]

That is certainly not my logic.

Nice backpeddling.

Nice attempt to put words in my mouth.



I was referring to Sarah Palin. You started talking about her spawn.

Personally I didn't care much for talk about Bristol myself, but since Ms Palin was a vice Presidential candidate who had a very specific position on contraception and abstinence, Sarah's own mothering skills were certainly open to the public eye.

Did anyone on the left call Bristol a "Prostitute" at the time for having a child out of wedlock? I think not.

Just pointing out the fact that Sarah Palin's own daughter did in fact have a child out of wedlock, despite Palin's position on the subject, is a far cry from calling her a whore.

That is, unless you're part of the right-wing morality police, I guess.

People on the left really don't often make morality judgements about unwed mothers, and the hypocrisy that was being pointed out was on the part of Sarah, not Bristol.



Holy shit, when did Seth Macfarlane become a mouthpiece for the Left Wing?

I must have missed that memo.

Somebody better tell his bosses over at NewsCorp.

Or Louie CK for that matter?

Yeah, I thought the Family Guy shtick was offensive. Just like every other Family Guy episode is offensive.

What dose that have to do with political commentary?

Now, would you like me to find all the hundreds of nasty things that Rush Limbaugh said about the Clinton family?

Talk to EdtheCretin. He's got em all hotlinked. I don't seem to recall him going so much after Chelsea till AFTER she was an adult and having a life of her own, and she's not a helpless child with downs Syndrome.

And not to mention, just because he did something horrible (in your mind) that you are justified in doing the same.... gasp! Just like I'm doing to you and you're whining like a little bitch about! Oh my!

I don't even know what you're talking about here. What am I supposedly whining like a bitch about again?

Wasn't it you who was whining and bitching about people making fun of the Palins?

In all fairness, that down syndrome girl episode was funny as shit. Especially that bit with Peter as the psychic detective fondling the missing guy's daughter, then asking if she's got a younger, hotter daughter. Cop goes, "Well, yes, but she's only 12." To which Peter replies, "Like a young 12 or a, 'she eats a lot of milk products so she's got her boobs early' 12? Which is a real thing by the way." F'in classic. Anyway. . .

If Rush wants to call that girl a slut, go for it. If he wants to apologize later to stop his sponsors from hopping ship, by all means, have at it. If Bill Mahr wants to call Sarah Palin the C word, hey, by all means. If politicians and commentators want to call someone's family members bad names and use bullshit tactics to try and discredit one another or to avoid actually attacking the topics and arguments based on their merits, go for it. I won't hold any of them personally responsible for the fact that a high percentage of the population can't seem to sift between the bullshit and the actual issues, and other than the hearts and minds of the sheep being swayed by non-issues and some peoples' feelings being hurt, there's really no harm done.

Likewise, if sponsors want to pull their public money out from under people who say things they don't like, then please, by all means, find something else to do with that money. Hell, shove it back in your pocket. That's your money. Enjoy.

Point is, who called who what name has absolutely dick to do with anything, and it's a silly f'in thing to make an issue out of. It's a shitty tactic, but most of these chuckleheads are offering some sort of argument or another among their inflammatory rhetoric. These arguments either do or do not hold water, regardless of what sort of shit-slinging is flavoring them.

 

[The T]

The ONLY one around here attempting to put owrds into anyone's posts was YOU.

You are a liar.

True Story.

Ahh, yes.

The old "Well you're a liar!" argument.

Similar to the old "Well... You're a JERK!" argument.

Good work!

Nice attempt. Welcome to the same treatment as you foist the same shit...no substance.

 

[Sunshine]

Of course she has an agenda, and she's had it since the day she enrolled. Her agenda is to force the church to conform.

Writes a Georgetown graduate and "former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution", Cathy Cleaver Ruse:

"I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.
"Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."

Cathy Ruse: Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate - WSJ.com

Once the school opens its doors to the public, then public policy applies. They don't get to discriminate based on religion. And if they altered the standard student policy that is used all across the nation, then they are guilty.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Uh, no, sex is not the issue.

Forcing a church to financially support a practice they have historically been against, is.

Having sex when no child is possible, due to infertility on the part of the woman, breaks the exact same commandment, in the exact same way, as having sex while using contraception.

Therefore, any man with a wife past the age of fertility should never be allowed to have sex with said woman.

And having sex out of wedlock is obviously just as bad a sin as spilling seed wastefully.

So, why would the church not be working just as hard to prevent people from getting Viagra through their insurance providers in these situations?

Hmmm?

Who cares? The consistency of their argument has absolutely zero to do with whether or not they have the right to object based upon it. Religious freedom means religious freedom, regardless of the logical merits of said religion.

I agree with your opinion that Catholics have what appear to be some glaring contradictions in their practices and philosophies. Where we differ is that I acknowledge that the protection of religious freedom is a protection of their right to practice in a manner that I might find stupid, contradictory, counter intuitive, or even downright offensive. Short of not allowing them to subjugate anyone who doesn't wish to participate in their practices, it's not the government's place to tell them how to behave or how to structure their faith. Also not my place. Not your place either.

 

[koshergrl]

Uh, no, sex is not the issue.

Forcing a church to financially support a practice they have historically been against, is.

Having sex when no child is possible, due to infertility on the part of the woman, breaks the exact same commandment, in the exact same way, as having sex while using contraception.

Therefore, any man with a wife past the age of fertility should never be allowed to have sex with said woman.

And having sex out of wedlock is obviously just as bad a sin as spilling seed wastefully.

So, why would the church not be working just as hard to prevent people from getting Viagra through their insurance providers in these situations?

Hmmm?

Why is that any of the government's business? First and foremost..the gov't has NO BUSINESS FORCING THE CHURCH TO DO ANYTHING.

 

[The T]

Uh, no, sex is not the issue.

Forcing a church to financially support a practice they have historically been against, is.

Having sex when no child is possible, due to infertility on the part of the woman, breaks the exact same commandment, in the exact same way, as having sex while using contraception.

Therefore, any man with a wife past the age of fertility should never be allowed to have sex with said woman.

And having sex out of wedlock is obviously just as bad a sin as spilling seed wastefully.

So, why would the church not be working just as hard to prevent people from getting Viagra through their insurance providers in these situations?

Hmmm?

Why is that any of the government's business? First and foremost..the gov't has NO BUSINESS FORCING THE CHURCH TO DO ANYTHING.

Whole crux of the argument, isn't it? Even in the Tax Code...making them prove they are not "For profit"...

 

[Vast LWC]

In all fairness, that down syndrome girl episode was funny as shit. Especially that bit with Peter as the psychic detective fondling the missing guy's daughter, then asking if she's got a younger, hotter daughter. Cop goes, "Well, yes, but she's only 12." To which Peter replies, "Like a young 12 or a, 'she eats a lot of milk products so she's got her boobs early' 12? Which is a real thing by the way." F'in classic. Anyway. . .

If Rush wants to call that girl a slut, go for it. If he wants to apologize later to stop his sponsors from hopping ship, by all means, have at it. If Bill Mahr wants to call Sarah Palin the C word, hey, by all means. If politicians and commentators want to call someone's family members bad names and use bullshit tactics to try and discredit one another or to avoid actually attacking the topics and arguments based on their merits, go for it. I won't hold any of them personally responsible for the fact that a high percentage of the population can't seem to sift between the bullshit and the actual issues, and other than the hearts and minds of the sheep being swayed by non-issues and some peoples' feelings being hurt, there's really no harm done.

Likewise, if sponsors want to pull their public money out from under people who say things they don't like, then please, by all means, find something else to do with that money. Hell, shove it back in your pocket. That's your money. Enjoy.

Point is, who called who what name has absolutely dick to do with anything, and it's a silly f'in thing to make an issue out of. It's a shitty tactic, but most of these chuckleheads are offering some sort of argument or another among their inflammatory rhetoric. These arguments either do or do not hold water, regardless of what sort of shit-slinging is flavoring them.

It's true that Family Guy is generally funny as hell, as well as offensive.

That particular episode I thought fell flat, as a bit too offensive, and not funny enough to warrant the offensiveness.

But the obvious distinction is: What Seth McFarlane has on his show, isn't going to be a political talking point the next day on the endless babbling of idiots that is 24-hour cable news.

The problem with Rush Limpballs, and Bill Maher, when they say something like this, is that is then becomes part of the general conversation and completely marginalizes what that person has to say for no better reason than Rush called them a whore.

The problem is that once someone is marginalized in this fashion, whatever they had to say that might have been helpful in the first place gets thrown out the window.

Which is why I also very much dislike Bill Maher. He's a self-righteous prick, who usually isn't funny enough to merit all the offensive crap he lays out in the supposed interest of being comedic.

Seth Macfarlane, at the end of the day, is a comedian.

Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher, at the end of the day, are political commentators, with a very large audience, that think they're funny.

 

[The T]

The democrats have foisted another piece of shit on the people. Limbaugh was right...

lushbo is an activist. He pushes his poison every single day and he has a right to do that.

But, WHAT was he right about?

What did he say about what Fluke said that was true or accurate?

Nothing. That's what he does for a living: LIE. And he lied about this.

I'm wondering if you ever listened to everything he said on the subject.

Get back to me when you're better informed.

From that guy? Are you serious?

Good luck.

(THANKS FOR THE LAUGH MY FRIEND).

 

[Vast LWC]

Who cares? The consistency of their argument has absolutely zero to do with whether or not they have the right to object based upon it. Religious freedom means religious freedom, regardless of the logical merits of said religion.

I agree with your opinion that Catholics have what appear to be some glaring contradictions in their practices and philosophies. Where we differ is that I acknowledge that the protection of religious freedom is a protection of their right to practice in a manner that I might find stupid, contradictory, counter intuitive, or even downright offensive. Short of not allowing them to subjugate anyone who doesn't wish to participate in their practices, it's not the government's place to tell them how to behave or how to structure their faith. Also not my place. Not your place either.

Unless the practice they wish to engage in is discriminatory.

In which case it is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

In the case where the catholic church only focuses on women's contraception choices, and does not include other moral matters of an exactly similar nature, the Constitution definitely becomes an issue.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why is that any of the government's business? First and foremost..the gov't has NO BUSINESS FORCING THE CHURCH TO DO ANYTHING.

Because the Church can have all the religious freedom they want...

Right up to the point that they try to tread on the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

Discrimination based on race or sex has been ruled to be unconstitutional.

 

[koshergrl]

Refusing to pay for somebody's birth control isn't discrimination.

 

[Rinata]

Of course she has an agenda, and she's had it since the day she enrolled. Her agenda is to force the church to conform.

Writes a Georgetown graduate and "former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution", Cathy Cleaver Ruse:

"I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.
"Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."

Cathy Ruse: Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate - WSJ.com

If you don't know her personally, then shut up!!! You know nothing about her. I don't like you. You are constantly running your mouth about things you just make up in that fat, stupid head of yours. Grow up.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

In all fairness, that down syndrome girl episode was funny as shit. Especially that bit with Peter as the psychic detective fondling the missing guy's daughter, then asking if she's got a younger, hotter daughter. Cop goes, "Well, yes, but she's only 12." To which Peter replies, "Like a young 12 or a, 'she eats a lot of milk products so she's got her boobs early' 12? Which is a real thing by the way." F'in classic. Anyway. . .

If Rush wants to call that girl a slut, go for it. If he wants to apologize later to stop his sponsors from hopping ship, by all means, have at it. If Bill Mahr wants to call Sarah Palin the C word, hey, by all means. If politicians and commentators want to call someone's family members bad names and use bullshit tactics to try and discredit one another or to avoid actually attacking the topics and arguments based on their merits, go for it. I won't hold any of them personally responsible for the fact that a high percentage of the population can't seem to sift between the bullshit and the actual issues, and other than the hearts and minds of the sheep being swayed by non-issues and some peoples' feelings being hurt, there's really no harm done.

Likewise, if sponsors want to pull their public money out from under people who say things they don't like, then please, by all means, find something else to do with that money. Hell, shove it back in your pocket. That's your money. Enjoy.

Point is, who called who what name has absolutely dick to do with anything, and it's a silly f'in thing to make an issue out of. It's a shitty tactic, but most of these chuckleheads are offering some sort of argument or another among their inflammatory rhetoric. These arguments either do or do not hold water, regardless of what sort of shit-slinging is flavoring them.

It's true that Family Guy is generally funny as hell, as well as offensive.

That particular episode I thought fell flat, as a bit too offensive, and not funny enough to warrant the offensiveness.

But the obvious distinction is: What Seth McFarlane has on his show, isn't going to be a political talking point the next day on the endless babbling of idiots that is 24-hour cable news.

The problem with Rush Limpballs, and Bill Maher, when they say something like this, is that is then becomes part of the general conversation and completely marginalizes what that person has to say for no better reason than Rush called them a whore.

The problem is that once someone is marginalized in this fashion, whatever they had to say that might have been helpful in the first place gets thrown out the window.

Which is why I also very much dislike Bill Maher. He's a self-righteous prick, who usually isn't funny enough to merit all the offensive crap he lays out in the supposed interest of being comedic.

Seth Macfarlane, at the end of the day, is a comedian.

Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher, at the end of the day, are political commentators, with a very large audience, that think they're funny.

Haha, we'll have to agree to disagree on that episode. Even some of the down syndrome jokes were funny, but I'm a nothing's sacred when it comes to comedy kinda guy.

I do agree quite a bit with your takes on Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh. I suppose I agree with Limbaugh a little more often than with Maher, but both of those guys have pulled so hard to their respective party's talking points in the past that their partisan Koolaid left a really bad taste in my mouth.

Even for political commentators, though, while it might taint my opinion of who they are as people, I personally believe in giving them a moral pass on name calling. People that are willing to throw out a person's entire argument because someone they tend to agree with called that person a slut, the C word, etc, aside from being a big part of my reason for opposing MTV's "Get Out the Vote" campaign, are responsible for their own decision to do so. Willful ignorance is nobody's fault but the practitioner, despite his or her influences.

It's the same thing in all arenas. They've got studies that show that an increasing number of babies being born out of wedlock directly correlates with the increasing poverty in our country. Implication? If the government enforced a law that only married women could legally get pregnant, the overall economic effects on our country would be positive. Nevertheless, I would wholeheartedly oppose any legislation even suggesting such regulation.

Freedom first, baby!

 

[Vast LWC]

Refusing to pay for somebody's birth control isn't discrimination.

But paying for other people's sex medication, while refusing to pay for another person's in the exact same situation, because of their sex, is.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course she has an agenda, and she's had it since the day she enrolled. Her agenda is to force the church to conform.

Writes a Georgetown graduate and "former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution", Cathy Cleaver Ruse:

"I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.
"Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."

Cathy Ruse: Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate - WSJ.com

If you don't know her personally, then shut up!!! You know nothing about her. I don't like you. You are constantly running your mouth about things you just make up in that fat, stupid head of yours. Grow up.

I don't have to know her personally, and you idiot, those are QUOTES from a WSJ piece.

Cripes. Negged for terminal stupidity.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course she has an agenda, and she's had it since the day she enrolled. Her agenda is to force the church to conform.

Writes a Georgetown graduate and "former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution", Cathy Cleaver Ruse:

"I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.
"Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."

Cathy Ruse: Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate - WSJ.com

If you don't know her personally, then shut up!!! You know nothing about her. I don't like you. You are constantly running your mouth about things you just make up in that fat, stupid head of yours. Grow up.

Oh, and....

 

[mudwhistle]

Of course she has an agenda, and she's had it since the day she enrolled. Her agenda is to force the church to conform.

Writes a Georgetown graduate and "former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution", Cathy Cleaver Ruse:

"I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.
"Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."

Cathy Ruse: Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate - WSJ.com

If you don't know her personally, then shut up!!! You know nothing about her. I don't like you. You are constantly running your mouth about things you just make up in that fat, stupid head of yours. Grow up.

 

[Vast LWC]

Haha, we'll have to agree to disagree on that episode. Even some of the down syndrome jokes were funny, but I'm a nothing's sacred when it comes to comedy kinda guy.

I do agree quite a bit with your takes on Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh. I suppose I agree with Limbaugh a little more often than with Maher, but both of those guys have pulled so hard to their respective party's talking points in the past that their partisan Koolaid left a really bad taste in my mouth.

Even for political commentators, though, while it might taint my opinion of who they are as people, I personally believe in giving them a moral pass on name calling. People that are willing to throw out a person's entire argument because someone they tend to agree with called that person a slut, the C word, etc, aside from being a big part of my reason for opposing MTV's "Get Out the Vote" campaign, are responsible for their own decision to do so. Willful ignorance is nobody's fault but the practitioner, despite his or her influences.

It's the same thing in all arenas. They've got studies that show that an increasing number of babies being born out of wedlock directly correlates with the increasing poverty in our country. Implication? If the government enforced a law that only married women could legally get pregnant, the overall economic effects on our country would be positive. Nevertheless, I would wholeheartedly oppose any legislation even suggesting such regulation.

Freedom first, baby!

I do see your point about name calling.

People should be allowed to call people they don't like a **** or an asshole all they like.

I think for me, in this particular case, and for so many other people that have a problem with this particular instance, is about the context of the name-calling.

In this instance, he wasn't just calling her a "whore".

He was saying that her viewpoint on this issue in particular made her a "whore" and a "prostitute", and that any woman who felt the same way was also a "whore" and a "prostitute".

There's a difference there.

If it was just an off-the-cuff, "she's a bitch", or something of that nature, it would not be NEARLY as offensive.

Sure, you might have some really sensitive people say something about it, with some bullshit PC point of view, but I sure as hell wouldn't care.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah, "they"ut the words in that blowhard rush's mouth, they "made" him say it. So much for "conservatives" and their "buck stops here" "accountability" MYTH.

The devil made him do it?

Society maybe?

Ummmm global warming?

He did it all by himself.

bosh... that implies personal responsibility. We all know the left doesn't believe in that.

 

[koshergrl]

Haha, we'll have to agree to disagree on that episode. Even some of the down syndrome jokes were funny, but I'm a nothing's sacred when it comes to comedy kinda guy.

I do agree quite a bit with your takes on Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh. I suppose I agree with Limbaugh a little more often than with Maher, but both of those guys have pulled so hard to their respective party's talking points in the past that their partisan Koolaid left a really bad taste in my mouth.

Even for political commentators, though, while it might taint my opinion of who they are as people, I personally believe in giving them a moral pass on name calling. People that are willing to throw out a person's entire argument because someone they tend to agree with called that person a slut, the C word, etc, aside from being a big part of my reason for opposing MTV's "Get Out the Vote" campaign, are responsible for their own decision to do so. Willful ignorance is nobody's fault but the practitioner, despite his or her influences.

It's the same thing in all arenas. They've got studies that show that an increasing number of babies being born out of wedlock directly correlates with the increasing poverty in our country. Implication? If the government enforced a law that only married women could legally get pregnant, the overall economic effects on our country would be positive. Nevertheless, I would wholeheartedly oppose any legislation even suggesting such regulation.

Freedom first, baby!

I do see your point about name calling.

People should be allowed to call people they don't like a **** or an asshole all they like.

I think for me, in this particular case, and for so many other people that have a problem with this particular instance, is about the context of the name-calling.

In this instance, he wasn't just calling her a "whore".

He was saying that her viewpoint on this issue in particular made her a "whore" and a "prostitute", and that any woman who felt the same way was also a "whore" and a "prostitute".

There's a difference there.

If it was just an off-the-cuff, "she's a bitch", or something of that nature, it would not be NEARLY as offensive.

Sure, you might have some really sensitive people say something about it, with some bullshit PC point of view, but I sure as hell wouldn't care.

No, he was saying (and did say) that people who expect to be paid to have sex are whores and prostitutes.

Let's check, shall we?

"
1pros·ti·tute

verb \ˈpräs-tə-ˌtüt, -ˌtyüt\
pros·ti·tut·edpros·ti·tut·ing




Definition of PROSTITUTE

transitive verb
1
: to offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse especially for money

2
: to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes : debase <prostitute one's talents "

Prostitute - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Hmmmm...