Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is vile. Nobody will ever convince me that is what "free speech" is supposed to be about. Our society has sunk so low that nobody even notices it.
I think that was Limbaugh's point, it's vile that the president would force an employer to give away free crap, and violate the freedom of religion rights, but the left will not see this, instead they will think harmless name calling was the vile act.
I don't agree with Limbaugh name calling this woman, but it sure as hell was a way to draw attention to an issue that eludes so many people.
I don't agree with Limbaugh name calling this woman, .
Could have fooled us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
The woman is going to freaking law school, and thinks the US Constitution gives the president the authority to order private citizens to give away free stuff. She deserved to be called out on it.
I think that was Limbaugh's point, it's vile that the president would force an employer to give away free crap, and violate the freedom of religion rights, but the left will not see this, instead they will think harmless name calling was the vile act.
I don't agree with Limbaugh name calling this woman, but it sure as hell was a way to draw attention to an issue that eludes so many people.
No, it wasn't a way to "draw attention" to something that is already a huge national controversy. It's was just vile. Don't try to defend it because you can't. And don't try to spin it becasue it makes you look just as bad.
Yes you are doing just that. Tricky Dick strikes again. Well, ineffectually. Works very well on brain dead prosperity preaching pews. Not in the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
The fact is this woman is attending law school, and supports a president using the HHS to force citizens to purchase birth control pills,
There's a barrel of a gun applied to my head to fill a prescription? The insurance I don't use because it doesn't apply to me/ abstain on religious grounds does not constitute theft. That would be a baldfaced lie you're telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
and then giving them away for free,
The only 'free' going on is the overreach of freedom religious groups are being given to inflict themselves on all others.
Working for an employer claiming themselves to be a charity is a standard business contract in practice. It is not a religious contract. If a religion is incapable of participating in secular pooled resource systems on religious objections it is free to make a closed gated community of itself as the Amish have done. It is also free to require religious adherence as a term and condition of employment. Don't work in a ham factory if you have religious objections to pork. No one forces a Jew to take a job at a ham factory. A Jew imposing himself on the planet abolishing the existence of ham factories is another matter entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
and if the citizen does not do this he is punished with fines, imprisonment, or both.
Don't use your personal religious convictions as a tool to impede others taking full responsibility for themselves, there is no quarrel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
What happens if Santorum is president, and decides you need to buy something and give it away for free too?
He's already conspiring to do just that punishing single, divorced, and widowed with triple taxes to reward married with children Ozzy and Harriet fantasies. But... that's not theft through taxation robbing a nun to cover the upscale digs of a stay at home mom's lifestyle choice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Then when Santorum is president, he can order his HHS to do the exact opposite. Because according to Santorum's personally held ideology, birth control is bad for the nation and bad for the culture. He could have his HHS secretary, thru 0bamaCare, demand that no insurance company can subsidize any birth control product or services, and any that do will be punished with fines, imprisonment or both. Because, don't you know, maybe no one should be forced to pay for anyone else's choice to us birth control.
Your argument is about abolishing insurance industry altogether. If there were merits to that concept, why not just present them straightforwardly rather than insult everyones intelligence with a million pounds of irrelevance as chaff to baffle with BS?
Because you're in defense of dysfunction that's profitable to your party line maintaining constituent ignorance. You're either too oblivious to see it, or you absolutely mean to use politics as a means to wage zero sum war games on the citizens of the host nation. Unacceptable when confederates did it, and it's unacceptable now.
No, it wasn't a way to "draw attention" to something that is already a huge national controversy. It's was just vile. Don't try to defend it because you can't. And don't try to spin it becasue it makes you look just as bad.
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around "harmless name-calling." Isn't that
an oxymoron?
He's a shock jock. It's what he is paid to do. I really don't see him any different than Howard Stern or those other obnoxious radio dj's who make crank calls and flatulence jokes.
Absolutely. I confess that I listen to Savage once in awhile just for the entertainment value.
Absolutely. I confess that I listen to Savage once in awhile just for the entertainment value.
The only time shock jocks are harmful to society is when people take them serious. You can apply the same rules to pretty much most forms of entertainment, sports, reality tv, etc...
It's a sad commentary about America that this racist slime makes 30 million plus a year, while Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann (Hartmann would never stoop that low on his show) probably don't even make 1 million.
I'd love to hear from his defenders about this one.
I think there is a very good chance that you need to hear what actually happened and to see that little activist twit performing for that sub-committee but since you have accepted what you call a link's word for it all I will leave you to this thread. I will post a link, soon, of her speaking to that sub-committee and leave you a chance to call my thing a lie. It should be fun. I heard Rush talking on his show about this situation today and also heard her doing her speech on Glenn Beck this morning. You screwed up on this one.
I think there is a very good chance that you need to hear what actually happened and to see that little activist twit performing for that sub-committee but since you have accepted what you call a link's word for it all I will leave you to this thread. I will post a link, soon, of her speaking to that sub-committee and leave you a chance to call my thing a lie. It should be fun. I heard Rush talking on his show about this situation today and also heard her doing her speech on Glenn Beck this morning. You screwed up on this one.
Shock jock #2
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The insurance I don't use because it doesn't apply to me/ abstain on religious grounds does not constitute theft. That would be a baldfaced lie you're telling.
