DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on March 02, 2012, 02:13:24 PM
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0302/Has-Rush-Limbaugh-finally-gone-too-far (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0302/Has-Rush-Limbaugh-finally-gone-too-far)
My more conservative friends use that word quite abit.
-
People are getting way to sensitive and they are getting way to uncivil.
On both sides of the spectrum.
-
Limbaugh has always gone too far in his insults. He has lost advertisers over this one.
-
The Left Can't Stop Lying About the Birth Control Mandate
Guy Benson
Mar 02, 2012
Where to begin with these people? It is exhausting and frustrating to try to keep up with bad-faith actors who intentionally lie for political gain, which is precisely what liberals are doing to confuse and distort the current debate over religious freedom and healthcare mandates. As we reported yesterday, the Democrat-controlled Senate killed a Republican amendment that would have restored religious liberty exemptions to the pre-Obamacare status quo. Its language was similar to both Hillarycare's conscience protections, and 1993's Ted Kennedy-authored and Bill Clinton-signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Despite these facts, Democrats and their allies have been lying their asses off, pretending that the effort they squelched as a "ban" on contraception. The Obama campaign has now dragged this false narrative to a new mendacious low with this mock-up employer/employee "permission slip:"
(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4f4fc3aa6bb3f7f82800008f-590-/obama-lie-tumblr.png)
Business Insider's Michael Brendan Dougherty counts the ways Team Obama lies its collective ass off in this pathetic item:
Lie #1 The idea employers have creepy discussions with individual employees about their sex lives when discussing their health insurance compensation. This does not happen. New hires usually get a packet with their insurance information just like everywhere else.
Lie #2 That employers currently (or under any law) would be granting or revoking permission to even use birth control. This is just not true. Currently many schools and hospitals just refuse to pay for it because they believe it directly implicates them in a sinful act. But employees are absolutely free to follow their own conscience and do what they want with their wages.
Lie #3 That there will be more ongoing creepy discussions and that a person's health insurance will be constantly changed and reviewed according to changeable moral standards. This is not the experience of anyone working at a religious hospital or school, nor would it be.
Lie #4 That these decisions even get this personal. These institutions typically write up an agreement with a health insurer–or they self-insure. It's an impersonal contract, not an inquisition.
Lie #5 Implicitly this makes it seem like it is also about women and their most common birth-control choices. It doesn't mention sterilization or "morning-after" drugs that are part of the mandate. And it doesn't mention most health-policies that don't cover birth control also don't cover elective-vasectomies for men.
That's a lot for one tiny slip of paper. The big lie behind all this is that somehow allowing some employers not to pay for this kind of coverage amounts to a "contraception ban." And we recognize this principle everywhere else. My employer, Henry Blodget, doesn't pay me in prayer books or altars. But that is not an infringement on my free exercise of religion. He isn't banning my faith.
Sen. Chuck Schumer has also been lying his ass off about contraception "bans" throughout this debate. The Washington Post's fact-checkers have awarded him "Three Pinnochios" for his trouble:
...The Blunt Amendment said nothing about banning or criminalizing birth control. Schumer’s comments ooze hyperbole and alarmist language. Beyond that, he has to rely on legalistic interpretations to defend them. As for the senator’s slippery slope argument, we find that accepting such reasoning is a bit of a slippery slope itself. It’s a favorite of politicians who want to draw loose connections rather than debate the merits of a proposal as it stands.
Meanwhile, the National Organization for Women's president is lying her ass off, too:
Terry O’Neill, head of the National Organization for Women, says that the Catholic bishops are “demanding that the government step in and use the force and power and police power of the state to prevent women from taking birth control because the bishops have failed.” Other groups represented at the press event where O’Neill spoke included such mainstays of the Obama coalition as NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.
False. Totally and completely false. In fact, it's the government that is "stepping in and using the full force and power and police power of the state" to force religious employers to pay for other people's birth control, which is already eminently available and affordable. Nobody is "preventing women from taking birth control." Some people just don't want to pay for it, for religious reasons or just because it's ridiculous. These women chant "keep your laws off our bodies," yet insist that government mandate "free birth control" while labeling anyone who objects on First Amendment grounds a misogynist.
Finally, we have our beloved president maintaining his "laser-like focus" on jobs by phoning the Georgetown law student who bent over backwards to land an invite to testify before Congress to push her demand that other people be forced to buy her birth control -- which she needs, you see, because she's going broke from having so much sex:
President Obama on Friday called a Georgetown University law student who has publicly backed the administration’s regulations mandating that employer-provided insurance plans offer free contraceptives, thanking her for standing firm against withering criticism and an escalating battle between Democrats and Rush Limbaugh. The president made the call just before Sandra Fluke, who last month supported Mr. Obama’s policy in informal testimony on Capitol Hill, was to appear on MSNBC. “What was really personal for me was he said to tell my parents that they should be proud,” she told Andrea Mitchell, the host of the cable news program.
So very proud. This woman is a hero, really. Should Rush Limbaugh have called her a "slut"? No. But does that in any way validate her selfish, statist, unconstitutional testimony? No.
Keep your greedy -- and apparently rather busy -- hands off religious employers' wallets, Sandra. (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/03/02/the_left_cant_stop_lying_about_the_birth_control_mandate)
-
Her testimony is in NO WAY unconstitutional. She has the right to say anything she pleases.
It is a violation of an individual right to deny BC pills to one person when another is entitled to them.
There is no individual right to withhold anything based on the belief of their employer. The employer has a right to not take BC pills or to take them. To withhold them from another is not a right.
Rush was entirely wrong to insult this woman. He enjoys being obnoxious and despicable. He has made it a career.
-
It is a violation of an individual right to deny BC pills to one person when another is entitled to them.
That is not the case here. Georgetown provides student health insurance. It does not cover contraceptives. Ms. Flukes policy is the same as all other Georgetown Students.
There is no discrimination. And she is certainly allowed to purchase them on her own. $5 at walmart for a month supply.
This is really the equivalent of a person walking in to Burger King and demanding a Taco Grande. And when told that Burger King does not provide those the person gets all upset and cries discrimination.
The Obama Admin through HHS regulations is saying that BK must now sell Taco Grande's for the fairness and the one size fits all of it.
Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure and if he wanted Universal Health Care and Single Payer coverage he should have passed it instead of passing this abortion of a law that does nothing but ensure the longevity of insurance companies and piss off a bunch of people.
-
The President could not pas any law. Congress passes laws. If Obama had been LBJ and known the members of tghe Hosue and senate as LBJ did, he could have no doubt gotten a better heath care law. As it is, it is vastly better4 than nothing, and was the best he could get.
And really, this has nothing to do with Tacos.
The Church is simply throwing the same hissyfits it always does, and the idiot Republicans are using them. And it won't work.
Obama is no doubt overjoyed that they want to debate birth control, which is used by over 95% of all the women in this country, rather than something useful.
-
The right is not debating birth control.
They are debating whether the first amendment protects religious institutions from federal governmental overreach.
And they might have passed a healthcare law but they are making the rules up as they go along.
Imagine the president telling Ford they have to provide the Amish, automobiles for free.
-
Her testimony is in NO WAY unconstitutional. She has the right to say anything she pleases.
And who the hell says she doesn't?? Good gravy, you and your non-existant deflective strawmen
It is a violation of an individual right to deny BC pills to one person when another is entitled to them.
Please, show us in the Constitution, someone's "right" to BC pills?? Not to mention this isn't even about denying birth control. This is about the Government doing an end around the 1st amendment and trying to mandate religious organizations to provide them, against their doctrine. No one's stopping anyone from going to get it them selves
-
It IS about denying women birth control.
The right to deny people stuff is not a constitutional guarantee. Where do you get that?
-
Actually the example brought up by the lady called a slut is a medical issue not a birth control issue. Meaning since the pill has medical use wouldn't that bypass a general restriction?
I can't defend rush of his actions,but i am surprise his fans are not rallying in his defense more visibly. i was not kidding about conservatives like using the word slut in public. I can actually hear people response"but she is"
-
It IS about denying women birth control.
NO, it ISN'T. If it was, you'd be seeing garbage like the fake authorization form that YOUR fella is trying to push. You'd hear rhetorical garbage advocating BANNING all form of BC, by anyone and everyone. You'd be hearing folks, like Rush, advocate the need for the Federal Government to step in and prevent women from not having children. You have this bass-ackwards, in that its Government trying to impose ITS doctrine, upon religious organizations, despite the CLEAR WORDING of the 1st amendment that prohibits the Government from doing precisely that
ONE MORE TIME.....I'M NOT AGAINST WOMEN USING BC. HOWEVER, I DO NOT SUPPORT MY TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR IT. IF SOMEONE WANTS BC, PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES, OR CONNECT WITH AN INSURANCE CARRIER THAT OFFERS IT. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TRY AND MANDATE A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION TO DO SO, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT RUNS COUNTER TO THEIR DOCTINE, NOT TO MENTION THAT THE 1ST AMENDMENT PROTECTS THAT DOCTRINE, AND CLEARLY SAYS GOVERNMENT CAN'T
The right to deny people stuff is not a constitutional guarantee. Where do you get that?
Now, back to the question posed, that not-so-surprisingly, went unanswered....where in the Constitution is there a "right to BC"??
-
Actually the example brought up by the lady called a slut is a medical issue not a birth control issue. Meaning since the pill has medical use wouldn't that bypass a general restriction?
I can't defend rush of his actions,but i am surprise his fans are not rallying in his defense more visibly. i was not kidding about conservatives like using the word slut in public. I can actually hear people response"but she is"
My understanding of Sandra Flukes testimony is she did not discuss her own situation but provided hearsay examples of what had happened to people she had spoken with at that school. One of the examples given was the use of BC pills for hormonal therapy which was in fact covered by the Georgetown policy. Flukes examples of costs were exaggerated because Walmart , Target and Walgreens have the generic BC pills for $5 a month supply.
I see no need to defend Rush. He can defend himself. But i do think he took the debate off topic by doing so.
The issue is simple. Does ObamaCare trump the Constitution. My answer is no. The SCOTUS answer is forth coming. All the rest is gums flapping.
-
The issue is simple. Does ObamaCare trump the Constitution. My answer is no. The SCOTUS answer is forth coming. All the rest is gums flapping.
Am I the only one at Georgetown who is not upset with Rush right now?
His comments regarding Sandra Fluke, third year Law student at Georgetown University, are less outrageous when viewed in the real context of the debate on Obama’s mandate for religious institutions to include contraceptive coverage in their healthcare plans.
Fluke, in her own testimony before a Democratic panel, pointed out that the University covered birth control pills when used for the treatment of a medical condition. This is the key to understanding Limbaugh’s comments. When used for medicinal purposes and healthcare, Georgetown has no problem covering the expense of birth control under their insurance plan.
Fluke’s complaint was based on the fact that it was not covered for the use as a contraceptive, which would violate the Catholic church’s beliefs.
Limbaugh’s statements were not that much of a stretch. He might have been a tad hyperbolic in making his point, but this is how he earns a living. Whether or not you agree with the way he phrased his argument, he may have a point.
Of course, no one wants to actually talk about that aspect of the issue. They would rather make this an unneeded debate about contraception rather than admit this is about religious liberty.
Limbaugh, in his attempt to focus the debate back on the actual issue at hand, has been demonized by...well, just about everybody.
President Obama went so far as to call Fluke and offer his support. Meanwhile, DC residents are paying almost $5 a gallon for gasoline. Good thing he has his priorities straight.
There have been calls from all levels of Democrats, including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), for all Republicans to condemn Limbaugh’s comments. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D- NY) wrote a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) saying, “the Republicans have a special obligation to condemn the atrocious and hurtful words spoken by Mr. Limbaugh.”
Apparently, now everyone has to actively seek out and apologize for comments other people make, regardless of whether or not they agree with them, if the offender shares a similar ideology. Where does this line of reasoning take us? Should all Baptists have to make public statements that they do not agree with the actions of Westboro Baptist Church?
That would be ridiculous. Just like the outrage over Limbaugh’s criticism of Fluke. I might be in the minority on my campus, but I agree with Rush.
Commentary (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhall.comstaff/2012/03/03/georgetown_student_rush_is_right)
-
More gum flapping.
-
Isn't that what we're all doing? Perhaps we should all just shut up and wait for SCOTUS to rule.
-
I certainly don't see where Fluke is anything but a footnote in the issue. I certainly don't think her composite testimony makes her a slut, nor do i think based on the information at hand taxpayer money is in play.
Fluke was a ringer. Now let's get back to the issue of whether the first amendment trumps provisions in ObamaCare.
Once again, i believe it does.
-
The individual is the one whose rights should be respected. The individual is being discriminated against by denying contraceptives for herself to her because of whom she works for.
The right to deny others something is not an individual right.
-
Fluke does not work for the Georgetown University. She has the same policy that every other student at Georgetown has. There is no discrimination.
And she certainly is smart enough to figure out how to get contraceptives on her own if she is smart enough for acceptance at Georgetown. There is no denial of contraceptives, she can get them if she wishes.
Fluke is not the issue. The conflict between religious rights and governmental overreach is the issue.
-
Fluke is not the issue. The conflict between religious rights and governmental overreach is the issue.
Ane yet, the op-ed I provided that echoed that same conclusion with "the real context of the debate on Obama’s mandate for religious institutions to include contraceptive coverage in their healthcare plans.", was deemed "more gum flapping".
Hmmm, so it isn't when you say it, but is, when anyone else does?? Is that how it works? :o
-
So my second admendment rights are being infringed every day that my employer is not buying ammunition for me to shoot?
-
I don't think the first protects copulation without consequences. Not sure if the second protects ammunition either.
Rush apologized to the activist of the day for a poorly worded analogy.
-
thats a surprise to me,since it`s true he didn`t get much support from his party. he also didn`t get much flake from them also. he did lose money from it though and that might of been the factor.
-
Next thing we know, will some Orthodox group claim that no US White House or Embassy banquet can serve lobster, clams or oysters? Or turning on the lights on the Sabbath?
In Israel, the Ultra-Orthodox will break the windshield of people driving through their neighborhoods.
Hell, the Christian Scientists can claim discrimination for government-supplied Anacin in VA hospitals requested by Christian Scientist vets with a headache.
-
What the frell?? Who'd be making who do what??
-
Next thing we know, will some Orthodox group claim that no US White House or Embassy banquet can serve lobster, clams or oysters? Or turning on the lights on the Sabbath?
In Israel, the Ultra-Orthodox will break the windshield of people driving through their neighborhoods.
Hell, the Christian Scientists can claim discrimination for government-supplied Anacin in VA hospitals requested by Christian Scientist vets with a headache.
This is a very large leap.
How do you make the connection?
-
I think i can answer that
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/american-girl-8-is-target-of-ultra-orthodox-jews-in-israel/1#.T1RDBPF5mK0
The connection just popped up when I saw orthodox
-
Still not seeing it. The 1st amendment is quite clear, with the foundation of that amendment, that of freedom. If one is being MADE to do/provide something, counter to their belief system, that's not going to fly with me, even if its in religion's favor
-
"I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the president's apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion-dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the Great Depression, and to suddenly decide that Rush Limbaugh is the great national crisis of the week" ~ Newt Gingrich
-
Jews, at least nearly all of them, do not try to impose their religious dogma on others, because they realize that it would be dangerous and probably stupid to do so.
Roman Catholics would like to impose the official Church dogma on all of us. They fought tooth and nail to keep condoms banned in Connecticut not all that long ago, and now they want to prevent as many women as possible, regardless of their religion, from using birth control.
-
NO ONE IS IMPOSING ANYONE'S RELIGION ON ANYONE. 1ST AMENDMENT HOWEVER SAYS THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT MAKE/MANDATE/FORCE ANY RELIGION TO PUSH POLICIES COUNTER TO ITS DOCTRINE. You don't want to work under a religious organizations tenets, DON'T WORK FOR THEM. No one is FORCING anyone to abide by the Catholic church's doctrines. Go buy your own fricken BC >:(
-
I got a question does a religious drugstore have the right to refuse to give back a paper prescription if they don't like birth control.
I believe it was this incident that caused all this to begin with.
I can confirmed it is very possible alternative to getting medication is not possibe.
Last month it took took me 7 days to refill my mothers medication. So it very possible quiker ways could not be available. I even asked if i could get another prescription from the doctor to speed it up. They just say wait alittle longer.
-
I got a question does a religious drugstore have the right to refuse to give back a paper prescription if they don't like birth control.
I believe it was this incident that caused all this to begin with.
I can confirmed it is very possible alternative to getting medication is not possibe.
Last month it took took me 7 days to refill my mothers medication. So it very possible quiker ways could not be available. I even asked if i could get another prescription from the doctor to speed it up. They just say wait alittle longer.
I don't believe a drugstore has the right to refuse to return a written prescription if it is unfilled.
I do believe a drugstore has a right to refuse to fill a prescription.
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/ff61352e.jpg)
-
In the Georgetown example how is the government involved in paying for the prescription?
-
They aren't.
This is about the right of employees of Catholic institutions to equally obtain what those who do not work for the Holy Mother Church.
-
Ok BT if this semantic makes you feel better and warm and fuzzy ::)
"Demanding that the Gvt hold a gun to the head of someone
forcing them to pay for your birth control and abortions"
-
Yeah, sure.
On some alternate planet.
-
The alternate planet is the one where the left thinks they're going to get away with screwing the 1st amendment
-
Hmm
Took me awhile the issue is tax payers money going to bc pills.
How about money going to the homeless?
-
Ok BT if this semantic makes you feel better and warm and fuzzy ::)
"Demanding that the Gvt hold a gun to the head of someone
forcing them to pay for your birth control and abortions"
it. has nothing to do with warm and fuzzy. it has to do with truyth and accuracy
-
it. has nothing to do with warm and fuzzy. it has to do with truyth and accuracy
Ok Bt...you put a period after the word "it".
And you did not spell "truth" correctly!
Shame, shame, shame....throwing rocks at glass houses!
You should be more accurate!
Barney Fife's going to make a "citizen's arrest!"
:D
(http://www.mcculloughsite.net/stingray/photos/fife.jpg)
-
right
<quote> it. has nothing to do with warm and fuzzy. it has to do with truyth and accuracy</quote>
Actually that is not too bad considering it was typed on a droid in a moving car.
-
Took me awhile the issue is tax payers money going to bc pills.
It si not about tax payers money paying for BC pills.
It is about employers money paying for bc pills for their employees, and how if the employer is the Holy Mother Church, the employer will not be oblige3d to pay for them.
It is about special treatment for the Roman Catholic Church.
-
That "special treatment" is called the 1st amendment to the Constitution
-
It is about employers money paying for bc pills for their employees, and how if the employer is the Holy Mother Church, the employer will not be oblige3d to pay for them.
If it is about employee employer relationships, what was Fluke testifying about. She was covered as a student at Georgetown.
The issue is the intrusion of the federal government into a private business transaction between organization a and organization b.
and the intrusion breaches the wall of separation between church and state.
-
Actually that is not too bad considering it was typed on a droid in a moving car.
true BT.....lol
and after more consideration I see your point
and I am glad I made the banner (which I did not design)
more accurate after your comment.
-
right
<quote> it. has nothing to do with warm and fuzzy. it has to do with truyth and accuracy</quote>
Actually that is not too bad considering it was typed on a droid in a moving car.
I severely hope someone elese is driving.
-
I think i can answer that
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/american-girl-8-is-target-of-ultra-orthodox-jews-in-israel/1#.T1RDBPF5mK0
The connection just popped up when I saw orthodox
This doesn't seem like a strong connection.
How is this like the Government forcing the religious to commit sacriledge?
If anything this seems like too much of the opposite.
-
I severely hope someone elese is driving.
yep
we were on our way to a spring training game
-
Watch the game , you addict.
-
Watch the game , you addict.
If we were on our way to the game, there was no game to watch whilst typing the message.
-
just today i produced a letter that all employees/contractors will sign stating they are aware that company policy is that they are forbidden/asked to not conduct any company business texting or otherwise while driving with a wireless device. got a heads-up from a lawyer that companies are being sued when a company rep has an accident texting while driving. no the letter wont seal the deal, but it cant hurt and may help minimize the damage opposing counsel could try and gain.
-
i was a passenger. But i do agree that drivers on cell;l phones or texting while driving are more dangerous than drunk drivers.
-
Christians covers his ass.
How droll.
Texting while driving is idiocy, I can agree with that.