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.
Difference is that Palin was and IS a public figure, previously on the Repub ticket for VPOTUS while
Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, politicians are fodder for comedians like Maher.
Palin was on the Republican ticket four years ago but I think she became one of your private citizens the day she resigned her position as Governor of Alaska. I guess being a public figure leaves one open for that kind of stuff for life. I would say that you are using the good old progressive double standard.
Okay, this statement is probably the most uninformed statement I've read on C-D all day:
Really? The President just sat around one day and said that he was going to put this stupid crap out there to take people's minds off gas prices or something? Hardly. This contraception issue was a part of the Affordable Care Act established in March 2010. It has been gradually phasing in different care levels since then. I think free mammograms were done last year.
Now you may not agree or want the Affordable Health Care Act and that's fine. But please don't be so ignorant to assume that this latest round of phasing parts of it in have anything to do with some sort of Machiavellan plan to cause strife. The GOP has done that magnificently on their own and they keep handing the President this lovely gifts with their absolute stupidity on most matters. And by "stupidity" I don't mean that they stupid simply because they disagree with what is happening, but their stupidity because they cannot handly ANYTHING without disgracing themselves. It is such a joke anymore.
Chris, did you just say that Obama and Sebelius didn't try to force Catholics to pay for contraception although they both knew that Catholics believe so much different than that? Did you manage to see them doing something other than taking a swing at a Christian group in hopes the Bishops would sit back and let them get by with it? If so, can you tell me why after a weekend to think about it The Man changed to forcing insurance companies to pay for population control?
Hang in there because The One is losing his butt with this one and may well get it slapped off because of that one.
I am somewhat compelled to offer free birth control as an investment. Although I am firmly opposed to abortion I believe you would find very few abortions from conservative women due to moral superiority. We may well be limiting infestation of the planet of liberals and immorals by paying for contraception. This is one of those win win propositions.
I would think then that the RW would be 100% behind abortions if only liberals get them. It wouldn't take long before there were no more liberals.
Your "moral superiority" argument is pure BS. A lot of conservative women get abortions. The difference is, the liberals don't lie about it.
[quote=noexcuseforignorance;23241405]I hadn't read much about this until your post. This lady, a 3rd year law student, tried to give testimony to a congressional hearing, but she was denied. You said, "he used this BC". Do you really think that the President sites around watching for any speaker that might be denied the ability to give testimony?
There were all of 0 women heard at the hearing around birth control for women. I don't you can be surprised if Pelosi testifies. The fault here is more with Republicans and their sausage fest hearing. This was of course exemplified by the drug addict spouting off that she's a **** seemingly because she might be on birth control.
[\quote]
Sorry but the hearing was about whether the mandate violated religious freedom. It was not around birth control for women. Contraception was the subject of the mandate, but the hearing was not about the mandate. It was about the constituionality of requiring religious organizations to provide goods or services which go against their beliefs. The particulars of the mandate itself were irrelevant to the hearing.
So try coming up with an argument that doesn't require changing the subect of the hearing as the basis for making your points.
As-is, your argument is pure straw man and there was no reason to allow Sandra Fluke to speak in the first place. You don't get to speak before congress just because you happen to show up that day. You actually have to have something relevant to say. She didn't.
Additionally, even if it was about birth control for women the fact that there weren't any women present is irrelevant and is an argument to false authority and an appeal to emotion rather than reason. Hey, let's restrict determining drunk driving laws to alcoholics only. Sober people don't understand what it is like to be a drunk driver so they should stay out of it, right? That's the same stupid reasoning that goes into saying men have no valid opinions about anything related to pregnancy.
I'm a moderate R--I hate to say it, but political commentators on the liberal side haven't gone as low as Rush just did.
Ed Schultz called Palin a bimbo, and he was taken off the air and suspended for a week by MSNBC when he called Laura Ingraham a "right wing sl*t." I can't stand Ed Schultz, but in his defense, he never implied that Laura Ingraham was sexually promiscuous--that's very clear from the conversation when he used the term. He used the term in the context of being a "political wh*re"--a term that means that you'll defend or support any behavior or any candidate as long as it's for your party, and you'll attack the other side for doing what your side does as well. It's still an inappropriate term, no matter how it's used. Bill Maher is the one who said the "C" word regarding Sarah Palin. He isn't a political commentator--he's a comedian--and nothing happened to him because he's on HBO and doesn't have to deal with sponsors. I refuse to watch his show.
Bottom line--what those liberals said was awful and disgusting--there is no excuse for it. What Rush said was worse.
Sorry but the hearing was about whether the mandate violated religious freedom. It was not around birth control for women. Contraception was the subject of the mandate, but the hearing was not about the mandate. It was about the constituionality of requiring religious organizations to provide goods or services which go against their beliefs. The particulars of the mandate itself were irrelevant to the hearing.
So try coming up with an argument that doesn't require changing the subect of the hearing as the basis for making your points.
I'm glad it's come up. It's about time we questioned the whole 'religious freedom' thing and weighed it against our societies needs and the rights of individuals given what we know today. Should be interesting!
Okay, let's suppose your "article" is correct and Ms. Fluke was a White House plant. So what? Ask yourself these questions:
Why would a man running for President say that he believes States should be able to outlaw contraception if he didn't truly believe it?
He did truly believe it. Any strict interpretation of the constitution would lead to the conclusion that states have the authority to ban contraception.
Quote:
Why would multiple Republican controlled states be introducing legislation that would require additional humiliation, and possible rape with a foreign object?
Well, your characterization of it is laughable. It's no more "rape" than a pap smear is rape. But that aside, the reason is that pro abortion people desperately want to hide how human a fetus really is and the Republicans feel that the woman should make an informed choice. And I'm sure you already knew that. The violation with a foreign object thing is a smokescreen. I remember a few years ago there was a big issue with sonograms that weren't invasive and then the left was all about it being an "undue burden". The real objection is pro abortion people don't want the fetus to be thought of as a baby so they will desperately oppose anything that might humanize it.
Quote:
What possessed a Congressman to have hearings about contraception to not invite nor allow a single woman to participate in the panel?
Well, again, you misrepresent the situation. The hearing wasn't about contraception. It was about whether a mandate violated religious freedom.
As far as what possessed them, I would say rational thought possessed them. There is no logical reason why a woman should have been at the hearing. Pelosi's argument was purely an appeal to emotion with no substantive basis whatsoever.
Quote:
What does it say about their frame of mind when the talking heads make Ms. Flukes's (the possible plant's) testimony purely about sex and not about the actual content, which was women's health care.
It says nothing. Sex is the reason it is happening in the first place. Sex sells. This is why the debate is about contraceptives and not heart medication. Heart medication is boring and wouldn't cause a controversy. The women's health thing is complete hogwash. It's merely the respectable veneer. Makes it sound less trashy. But the only reason anybody cares about this is because it is about sex.
Quote:
What possessed the most powerful voice in the Republican Party to call a private citizen a, "s***," "prostitution," and a porn star?
I don't know. I don't care. What possessed Obama to call Pennsylvania voters bitter people clinging to their guns and religion? People say dumb things.
Quote:
What are you actually upset about? That a White House plant got Republican leaders and candidates to give honest opinions on a subject? Is it the honesty you don't like, or the fact that it has shed light on just how out of tough these leaders and candidates are with a majority of Americans?
Personally what I find most upsetting about this entire thing is how the public has been manipulated. I'd really like to think of Americans in a better light and it is disappointing that people are so selfish, ignorant, short sighted, and gullible.
The question begs.
Ok some women have valid health concerns and require medication. That is a seperate issue from contraception. It was lumped together because it was intended to deliver the message: Deny contraceptives and women will be hurt. No a small percentage would be and they most likely are covered by insurance.
Condoms are pretty cheap. But even pricey ones at $2.50 each say sex 3 times a week over 4 years=$1560.00.
If they need sex that bad have the boy friend go haves on them. Thats $780.00 over for years or $16.25 a month.................
Ok I am a prude lets double it or $32.50 a month. A little more than a dollar a day for sex. Pretty cheap really.
Oh but they don't like condoms?
$9.00 a month at target near Georgetown.. Cost for birth control pills near Georgetown? $9 at Target | Radio Vice Online.
That would be 3 cents a day.
Dont like the pill?
Depo - provera 35 to 75 every 3 months split the difference. call it $50.00
55 cents a day. $803.00 over 4 years.
Cell phone bill. My wife has the average with internet. $75.00 per month or $2.50 a day. Track phone is much cheaper.
My point being her argument was weak at best.
Rush was an ass, but when you stick your neck out argueing something this lame you get treated bad for it.
They want sex? Good so did I and I still do. I just don't expect everyone else to foot the bill.
Condom Effectiveness With typical use, 85 percent relying on male condoms will remain pregnancy free.[3]
They're not asking you to pay for anything.
They want them covered under their insurance. They're paying for the insurance.
One of the issues is that cialis and other erectile dysfunction "remedies" are covered.
It's another example of punishing women.
Let's just say that bc pills aren't available and there are a lot of pregnancies.
Those resulting kids go into the system for a minimum of 18 years.
Want to pay those costs?
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.
