Likes: 
Faceplams: Rugged individualism.Originally Posted by 50 Volt Phantom
Administrator
Rugged individualism.
Hairy Member
Indeed.
Stubby Member
I'll take any of them over Obama, even nutjob Ron Paul.
Throbbing Member
Throbbing Member
Rick Santorum.......who literally said contraceptives are immoral.
Stubby Member
I may disagree with aspects of each of them, and I do, but I will still go for any of them over Obama. There is no perfect candidate, you have to work with what you've got.
Throbbing Member
^ It's just that my uterus is important to me.....
Hairy Member
Your attitude sums up what is one of the general, overarching strategies of the GOP, which is to just degrade and corrupt the whole process so that everyone in politics looks bad. Then enough people will abstain from voting out of frustration, thus handing you another election. If enough people were educated enough to know the policy and procedural differences between the parties, the Republicans would lose every time. It looks like Romney will pull off the nomination, if he wins in the general, then the prediction born out after Citizens United will have come true. You will be able to win the presidency by carpet-bombing your opponents with negative ads, frustrating the electorate and driving turnout down, all without ever having to define yourself as a principled candidate.
Stubby Member
Congrats, there are a plethora of other issues more important to me, but it's been amazing watching the media take a religious issue and masterfully switch it to a women's issue.
I would just rather not see what Obama does with a second term, he's done enough already.
Stubby Member
I disagree, if people truly understood policy and the effects of policies then conservatives would win everytime, unless you like being told what to do, paying for other prople's handouts, and a stifled economy with high unemployment and unbearable debt.
Politics aren't frustrating because of the GOP, they're frustrating in general, we all don't see eye to eye, and although liberals would prefer to simply silence and remove those that disagree with them, I'd rather we have the freedom to disagree with each other than be forced into a box, even if I do think logic and reason sides with conservatism, not the other way around.
Active Member
It is a women's rights issue.
The problem with debating you is you just make stuff up. You just randomly make stuff up without anything to back up what you're saying. You make these generalizations about an entire group of people that just aren't true, and then just act like it's a fact.
Throbbing Member
Because, for example, "liberals would prefer to simply silence and remove those that disagree with them" is a sound and reasonable statement, which follows logically from a series of valid precepts we can all agree on, and can't also in any way be said to be true of any other political perspective, via similar generalization.
Stubby Member
Rush Limbaugh calls someone a slut and the media explodes and demands he is silenced, Sarah Palin uses targets for political opponents, something first used by a Democrat, and she is heinous, calling for violence and should be locked up, Bill Maher calls Palin a cunt and Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham a slut and nothing happens, The View even defends the slut comment, liberal journalists are caught wishing for and joking around about Rush Limbaugh suffering a terrible heart attack and there is no outcry, liberal radio talk show hosts spew vitriol and violence and there is no outrage. Janet Napolitano even decides to emphasize the danger of religious conservatives in Homeland Security documents, and the only people upset are the conservatives. So how come the only time there is outcry amongst the left is when conservatives do something the left deems offensive, like Rush's comments, but not when the same thing comes from a progressive? How come no one here gave one ounce of energy towards discussing the same thing being done to Laura Ingraham, or to Sarah Palin? It's because they are conservatives and you couldn't give a shit less. You have your head up your ass if you think the liberal agenda at large isn't to squash all that oppose them by any means necessary. You all certainly gave Obama a pass, if any Republican candidate hung out with as many radicals as Obama has the outrage would've been thick enough to cut. But that's the catch, they're a Republican, so it's all good to shit all over them anyway.
An no ruiner, this started as a religious issue, in that private Catholic organizations didn't want to cover birth control because of their religious beliefs, which in a country not being slowly overrun by loons, would be okay. You don't like it? Pay for your own insurance or work/go somewhere else. The media then took the opportunity to transition from a freedom of religion issue to a women's rights issue, because they knew it would work in their twisted favor.
Throbbing Member
Lord have mercy.
"Bill Maher calls Palin a cunt."
If you see no inherent difference with calling someone a name because they don't like them in general and actually articulate why (notice how Bill Maher doesn't say "she's a cunt because she's a woman" ), and someone calling someone a slut BECAUSE they are interested in birth control BECAUSE they are possibly having sex and BECAUSE they are talking about an issue that involves their reproductive system then Idk what to tell you. False equivalencies abundant.
"An no ruiner, this started as a religious issue, in that private Catholic organizations didn't want to cover birth control because of their religious beliefs, which in a country not being slowly overrun by loons, would be okay."
IN WHOSE MIND?! HOW IS THIS OKAY. Some of these organizations employ tens of thousands of people and they are allowed to not include something integral to women's health because of their inherently sexist, inherently patriarchal, inherently prejudiced beliefs? Did you know that "58% of American women taking birth control pills use them in part, for reasons other than contraception" (TIME) My roommate just this year had ovarian complications and the ONLY thing they could give her for it was birth control. If the insurance her employer allowed did not provide it she would not be able to afford it! Not only that, the only thing that makes these organizations Catholic is MONEY. Why should they be able to play by different rules just because their idiotic beliefs are based on religions? All other businesses have to abide by these rules already and in 22 states there is already a religious mandate for this. Not a woman's issue? Birth control is often the ONLY medication for complications regarding ovarian cysts, extreme acne, hormonal problems etc. The other giant elephant in the room? Rape is honestly so prevalent in this country its better to just be on birth control. I personally know 3 people who've been raped in the last 2 years and one of them had to get an abortion. I can't believe you literally just tried to argue its not a women's issue. I have friends who've had to take birth control since they were 10 and 11 because their menstrual cramps are so severe they literally cannot function. STILL THINK ITS NOT A WOMEN'S ISSUE?
Btw comments like "work somewhere else" are so ignorant and sad. You think people are in a position to just quit their jobs over something that is an injustice to begin with?! Why dont these organizations LEAVE THE COUNTRY and "go somewhere else" because they don't want to play by America's rules on insurance. Why should they get special treatment because of religious association?
STILL NOT A WOMEN'S ISSUE?!
If there was a medication that prevented cysts in males (and gets rid of them in many cases), cured hormonal problems that cause bloating and discomfort so great they couldn't function but also prevented them from ejaculating would you consider it a MENS ISSUE if organizations led by women refused to cover their insurance because of some idiotic religious belief????
Last edited by littlemonkey613; 03-08-2012 at 07:24 PM.
Active Member
Um...you're comparing apples to oranges here. Sarah Palin deserves the vitriol she got. This woman who Rush called a slut didn't deserve that. At all. She was standing up for her rights as a woman, and he called her something that he has absolutely no proof for. It's slander. And, by extension, he was talking about ALL WOMEN who want their insurance to cover contraception and/or use insurance to cover their contraception, which is a hell of a lot of people. Bill Maher LOST Politically Incorrect over comments he made. There was a HUGE outcry against that. And he was completely right, by the way, but that's a whole other topic.
No one should be joking about Rush Limbaugh having a heart attack, but that's not nearly on the same level as trashing a woman for standing up for her rights and the rights of all women. And it's not insulting a giant group of people, as Rush did. I don't know where you get this "liberal radio spews violence." I've heard a lot of liberal radio, and while I most definitely agree that they spew a lot of bullshit, too, I've never heard them encourage people to get violent. I doubt that would get a pass from the media.
Janet Napolotano is completely right. There are right-wing extremists, just as I'm sure there are left-wing extremists. There was a controversy over that, so your point that she got a pass is just completely and totally false. Not to mention, she had done a report earlier focusing on left-wing extremist groups. So what, exactly, is your point again?
Sorry that the Catholic church is backwards in its view of contraception, but this is the 21st century, and we can't sit around waiting for the dinosaurs to catch up. This is ensuring that women have their medical needs met. Women are the ones affected by this. It is a women's rights issue.An no ruiner, this started as a religious issue, in that private Catholic organizations didn't want to cover birth control because of their religious beliefs, which in a country not being slowly overrun by loons, would be okay. You don't like it? Pay for your own insurance or work/go somewhere else. The media then took the opportunity to transition from a freedom of religion issue to a women's rights issue, because they knew it would work in their twisted favor.
And it is kind of amazing to me that conservatives, by and large, have been the ones saying that the church should be allowed to exclude contraception, considering, generally speaking, people with conservative values aren't crazy about abortion, so this would be, you know, preventing them. Not to mention saving money on pre- and post-natal care and delivery for pregnant women since, you know, fewer pregnancies and all that. On every level this makes complete sense. If we have to drag some people kicking and screaming into the 21st century, then so be it.
Throbbing Member
Because I feel my passions got in the way of being really articulate I post a nice little summary from STFUconservatives.
"Again, you have NO. IDEA. what you are talking about. Nobody wants their employer to pay for their birth control. What we want is for our insurance companies - the ones we pay a monthly premium to, just like you men - to cover all of our medication, including birth control. Currently, religious leaders and Republicans are trying to make it so that any employer, even ones who aren’t religiously affiliated, can refuse to have their private insurance company cover birth control on the basis of their personal morals. In other words, the CEO of your investment banking company can decide his religion doesn’t condone birth control, so he can tell YOUR insurer to stop covering it. Again: you just have no idea what you’re talking about."
Do you get it now?
Hairy Member
You have it backwards, the GOP took a women's health issue and turned it into a religious issue to try and rile their religious base. They have no strategy for improving the economy so they dredge up the old cultural wedge issues to divide & distract people from the real issues. It's the same old shit. And you're a perfect shill for the GOP, you just spout off about an all-powerful liberal media elite as if FOX, Rush, etc. don't exist.
Active Member
Spot on. (ten characters)
Stubby Member
So many things here...
First of all, ruiner, why does Palin deserve to be lambasted by Maher? Because she is a conservative? Because she's been labelled as stupid? Please explain how it's okay for her or Laura Ingraham to be attacked with derogatory terms but not someone like Sandra Fluke, who is looking more and more like some kind of operative. I don't agree with any of the terms being used to describe any of the people, but you're clearly okay with one and not the other, I'd like to know why.
Little Monkey, it should not be the government's place to push a private organization or religion into doing something it is opposed to, whether or not I think contraceptives should be covered. This is a slippery slope, and we've got enough of those already. If a private organization wants to remove certain things from coverage on the basis of morals or religion I'm fine with that, and if I disagree I have the freedom and right to choose to go elsewhere. I'm a states issue kind of person, so I know that none of you will see eye to eye with me on this one, but we can't let private companies continue to be pushed around by the government, it's dangerous in my eyes.
Chris, is it wrong to say that in general the average person out there thinks Fox news is looneyville? How many people really listen to Rush? He has a devoted following, much more than any liberal talk radio show host, but in the grand scheme of things how much pull does he really have? Outside of FOX and a handful of other conservative leaning sources that are mainstream, the rest is a liberal playground. I hardly ever see FOX on anywhere I go these days anyway. Now, how powerful and influential is Hollywood? How much exposure do those folks and their message get? Hollywood is unabashedly left, it's practically a kiss of death to be anything else in that industry. There are other facets of our life, like the education system, that are swinging towards the left as well. Rush and FOX DO exist, but does it matter when almost everything else around them is stacked against them?
Throbbing Member
Fox is the number one news station in the country.
Active Member
Sarah Palin was against equal rights for gay people. That's horrible. That's not just "a difference of opinion," that's horrible. She also believed that women who are raped should be forced to have the baby. I don't know, call me crazy, but the label seems to fit.
I have no idea what the whole Laura Ingraham situation is, so I can't comment.
Sandra Fluke was, again, standing up for the rights of all women. Rush proceeded to slander her and all women who use insurance to pay for their contraception.
So, yeah. It doesn't really bother me that an idiot like Sarah Palin gets called a name because she kind of deserves it. But I have a soft spot for equal rights and women's rights. Crazy, I know. Sandra Fluke was standing up for the right thing, wasn't trying to infringe on anyone's rights, in fact, quite the opposite, and Rush came in and not only insulted her, but a LOT of women. A lot. Like millions and millions and millions.
I think Little Monkey put it best, though:
If you can't see the difference, I really don't know what to tell you.If you see no inherent difference with calling someone a name because they don't like them in general and actually articulate why (notice how Bill Maher doesn't say "she's a cunt because she's a woman" ), and someone calling someone a slut BECAUSE they are interested in birth control BECAUSE they are possibly having sex and BECAUSE they are talking about an issue that involves their reproductive system then Idk what to tell you. False equivalencies abundant.
THANK YOU.
Last edited by theruiner; 03-08-2012 at 08:42 PM.
Stubby Member
I'm aware, but it is one station against many.
Active Member
Do you know how many conservative talk stations there are in this country? Compared to liberal talk stations? Jesus, it's not even a competition. I guarantee you the average person knows who Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are. How many people know who Stephanie Miller is? Or Randi Rhodes? Or Thom Hartmann? I'm not saying they don't have an audience, but come on.
Stubby Member
She is against gay marriage and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," big deal, a lot of people are, Obama even seems to be on the fence personally with this one, that doesn't make them bad people, it just makes them people that disagree with you, and believe marriage has a different foundation than you do. Fluke was a tool of the Democrat party, brought out by Nancy Pelosi to be the perfect face for their new push. So they both have conceivable flaws, neither one deserves to be referred to as derogatory terms against women.
Laura Ingraham, by the way, was called a "right wing slut" by Ed Schultz, who after a big push was punished, but not before his defense went as far as The View, where the ladies talked about how it was kind of cool to be called a slut these days, and no big deal at all. I don't think they're saying the same thing now about Fluke, but I could be wrong.
Stubby Member
Ya, but how many know them because they've seen CNN, MSNBC, or any other number of sources blast them and not because they actually pay attention to them.
Throbbing Member
Dear lord. Would you say the same about people against interracial marriage? It is a big deal! Obama on the fence? He eliminated DADT, stopped defending DOMA, made the LGBT community eligible for hate crimes, extended spousal rights to of same sex couples to federal employees, and made it so gay couples have hospital visitation rights. No difference AT ALL between him and Sarah Palin huh......
I litearlly can't believe you just admitted you don't think its a big deal when civil rights and equality are being denied.
"So they both have conceivable flaws, neither one deserves to be referred to as derogatory terms against women."
BAGHGHGGHHGG I just said the immense anger isn't about the term!!! It's the sentiment behind it! How can you not see o.O
"it just makes them people that disagree with you, and believe marriage has a different foundation than you do." UM NO it doesn't! I have different views on marriage than EVERYONE and yet you don't see me looking at others and trying to tell them what they can and can't do in regards to their own marriages. Do you really see no difference between having an opinion on marriage and trying to keep gay people from adopting children, telling them their lifestyle is sinful, trying to keep them from having spousal rights, and literally as Rick Santorum said trying to ANNUL their marriages? It is bigotry plain and simple.
It's like your the poster child for ignorant people with privilege. "What do I care what happens to them" over and over and over.
"If a private organization wants to remove certain things from coverage on the basis of morals or religion I'm fine with that, and if I disagree I have the freedom and right to choose to go elsewhere."
This can't have anything to do with you not being denied certain things in your insurance or being at risk of that. It must have nothing to do with your position of privilege within this country and not being able to fathom having your body regulated in the way this country regulates the body of women. You don't benefit in any way from this mandate. 98% of Catholic women have used birth control. You need to think about this in different terms. It is not coincidence that these are male dominated organizations. You wish to ignore the sociological implications, and inherent sexism and treat it as if its just another political disagreement. All you see is government stepping in and forcing companies to do things. This is exactly the same as those who are against the civil rights act because it forces companies to not be racist. They called that a slippery slope too. How about you look at this from the perspective of those of us who are oppressed and marginalized because of our sex due to this? Honestly I'm not against the idea that government shouldn't meddle in business when it doesn't need to. But I literally can't think of a better and necessary example than this one. It is the perfect example of a powerful majority infringing on a minority. You are willing to sacrifice the well being and health of women in the working world because it MIGHT be a slippery slope?
Also about Rush Limbaugh his comments reveal something that is considered normalcy in this country. His words represent a culture of hatred for women and a belief that they are not supposed to be having sex. Maher's comments in no way share this implication. None of his comments are in response to her gender and what shes supposed to be doing because she is a woman.
No difference at all? At all? Literally half the time Maher calls her a cunt for not supporting legislation that benefits women!!!! Also Bachmann said wives are supposed to submit to their husbands so.....ummm
CNN? Newsflash being not Fox News , doesn't make you a liberal station.......
Last edited by littlemonkey613; 03-08-2012 at 09:17 PM.
Stubby Member
A culture of hatred toward women? Haha, you've got to be kidding me. I don't care how much sex you have, have as much as you damn well please, I just don't think a government should be pushing around a private organization, period. It's not like anyone is saying you can't have contraceptives at all, get as many as you want, but don't expect a company with a moral dilemma towards it to provide it for you.
When it comes to gay marriage I'm not against it, but I can completely understand someone being against based on personal or religious views on what marriage is defined as, and Obama on a PERSONAL level isn't even sure where he stands on the issue, sure his administration has made advancements in that area, but he personally doesn't seem willing to take a stance.
By the way, for the most part, YES, not being Fox basically makes you a liberal station, or are you going to actually suggest that CNN isn't obviously partial to one agenda over another. They're all crap for the most part, just working towards a different end goal.
Last edited by 50 Volt Phantom; 03-08-2012 at 09:25 PM.
Throbbing Member
As in against the Civil Rights Act Period?
"I can completely understand someone being against based on personal or religious views on what marriage is"
Yes.. I understand it to. And because of that I know it comes from prejudice and bigotry.....
Last edited by littlemonkey613; 03-08-2012 at 09:28 PM.
Active Member
Are you seriously asking that? Seriously? Man, honestly, you are living in your own world.
Look at it that way, 50 Volt. Honestly. Equal rights for black people? Of course. Equal rights for gay people? Well, I'm personally for it, but I can understand where people aren't. Come on. That's just ridiculous.
Last edited by theruiner; 03-08-2012 at 09:36 PM.
Stubby Member
See I don't see the same kind of connection between gay marriage and what African Americans went through during the civil rights movement as you do. In fact I think it dilutes the true evil of segregation and racism. You aren't being asked to sit somewhere else, to drink out of a different water fountain, use a different bathroom, go to a different church and school, etc.
Believing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not nearly on the same level by any means as burning a cross on a front yard or blowing up a church.
Posting Permissions
