RE: The Voice of American Conservatism?

RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/4/2012 8:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: I think he also mentioned it was one of the only stations he could get at the time I thought Rich lived in California... Is this where we find out he lives on the Barker Ranch or something More likely, this is where it becomes clear that my old boss was a cheap bastard when it came to the radios, and that the equipment got shuffled around enough, that you didn't want to put your own in. And what I actually said was there are places where only the really high powered stations could penetrate the mountains and canyons. It's rather odd when a stalker has your posts on hide. Somebody wanna quote?

tweakabelle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/4/2012 8:50:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama If you understood that a woman takes the Pill every day, whether she is having sex that day or not, irrespective of the number of partners she has, why would you call it "her right to subsidized promiscuity?" A couple reasons, Kalikshama. For one, to highlight that people right here on this planet, with a legitimate stake in the discussion, and legitimate rights to their beliefs, and free expression of them, have differing values, and interpretations of behavior. Of course you are entitled to your beliefs. I'm looking for the rationale behind them. Yes. I too am going to find it illuminating to see how TheHeretic charts the descent from the lofty ideals he claims motivates his posts to the scurrilous deceitful crap (eg "subsidized promiscuity") that actually comprise his posts. The two are so far apart that I doubt any rational connection can be established. TheHeretic seems to have cobbled together a couple of inane posts since this question was directed at him. Sadly no explanation was offered in those posts, or even hinted at. So we're still waiting for an explanation from TheHeretic of how he manages to start off in with such wonderful ideals and ends up posting such muck. Still waiting TheHeretic ....................................still waiting .........

TheHeretic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/4/2012 9:02:16 PM)
Maybe try reading what you quoted, Tweak? To highlight that there are different ways for people to see exactly the same set of facts. Did it happen to occur to you that I might regard your demands for attention as the "inane" bits? Do you need a link for that?

tweakabelle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/4/2012 11:52:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Maybe try reading what you quoted, Tweak? To highlight that there are different ways for people to see exactly the same set of facts. Did it happen to occur to you that I might regard your demands for attention as the "inane" bits? Do you need a link for that? It sounds as though you are claiming that it's reasonable/rational to interpret women who take contraceptives for general health (non-sexual) reasons as somehow enjoying a right to "subsidized promiscuity". Reasonable??? Rational???? Not even your hero Rush claims that any more. He's (grudgingly) apologised to save his own neck - thereby abandoning all those who sprung to his defence mired deeply in the pooh (nice guy, hey?) So please, detail one rational or reasonable way of proceeding from the noble ideals you claim motivate you to connecting taking medicine prescribed by a doctor and "subsidized promiscuity" without resorting to misogyny. Show us it is possible, even theoretically. I refuse to believe that even a moron could credibly claim the connection is self evident.

thishereboi -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 6:05:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You didn't put religious right in your list of choices so I didn't bring them up. But since you mentioned them, do you think they are worse than the religious left? Now I know the ones on the right make all the noise and the ones on the left sit back and smile a lot, but are they really that much different? Now there are certainly times I wish they would just shut the fuck up, but I wouldn't call them the scum of the earth. Well, maybe some of them. It's hard to imagine someone's being unable (or unwilling?) to distinguish between, say, Gene Robinson or Jim Wallis and Pat Robertson or Jim Dobson. I have heard of Pat Robertson and the name Dobson sounds familiar but I am not sure who the other two are. Was there a point to this?

thishereboi -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 6:08:12 AM)
quote: They wanted a war, they should cease complaining about it now that they have one. and who exactly are they at war with? Or is this a battle being fought in your own mind?

thishereboi -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 6:14:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: I think he also mentioned it was one of the only stations he could get at the time I thought Rich lived in California... Is this where we find out he lives on the Barker Ranch or something More likely, this is where it becomes clear that my old boss was a cheap bastard when it came to the radios, and that the equipment got shuffled around enough, that you didn't want to put your own in. And what I actually said was there are places where only the really high powered stations could penetrate the mountains and canyons. It's rather odd when a stalker has your posts on hide. Somebody wanna quote? Sure, np

slvemike4u -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 6:15:56 AM)
Not actually positive to who you are posing that question boi,nor am I sure of which "war" the poster is referencing,but given the thread and the general subject.....might it be the "culture war" that is being refereed to . Just my guess [:)]

kalikshama -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 6:16:17 AM)
quote: It sounds as though you are claiming that it's reasonable/rational to interpret women who take contraceptives for general health (non-sexual) reasons as somehow enjoying a right to "subsidized promiscuity". Also, subsidized implies paid for by the taxpayers, when in fact, at Georgetown, the students pay for their health insurance. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57389769-503544/sandra-fluke-rush-limbaugh-wants-to-silence-women/ "This is about PRIVATE insurance coverage. As a student, our coverage is entirely paid for by students, not even by our university. ...This isn't about the government paying for anything, the taxpayers paying for anything, certainly no political commentator is paying for anything. So, yes, it seems to be a serious mischaracterization of the situation."

thishereboi -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 6:19:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Not actually positive to who you are posing that question boi,nor am I sure of which "war" the poster is referencing,but given the thread and the general subject.....might it be the "culture war" that is being refereed to . Just my guess [:)] sorry, I clipped it but apparently the christians are at war. I wonder if I should go get the wagons into a circle. quote: ORIGINAL: HardSadisticFun quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: HardSadisticFun Yeah Obama needs to talk about the 'real issues' like cell phone towers. My God. Who exactly is Maher bigoted against? Are we about to get a 'pity the poor white man' rant? The last time we had a 'real budget', ie a balanced one, was when Clinton was in office. The last Republican to balance a budget was Eisenhower. The last Republican to not, at a minimum, double the deficit was Nixon. Cell phone towers aren't the issue, HSF. Taking away local authority, over local matters, that impact local lives, is a solid, kitchen-table, kind of issue. Do you watch Maher's show? Do you see the contempt he continually expresses for people of faith? I quit watching because I found it offensive, and I'm not a Christian. Why does my race matter, in the subjects of my rants? A budget, period, HSF. You know. As in, a document that presents an accounting the American citizen of how our money is being spent? Oh, and welcome to the forums. [:)] Yes, he does have contempt for people of the Christian faith......so do I. I would have been perfectly content to 'live and let live', but Christians are hell bent on shoving their destructive, racist and divisiveness on the rest of the population. They wanted a war, they should cease complaining about it now that they have one.

kalikshama -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 6:21:06 AM)
quote: So please, detail one rational or reasonable way of proceeding from the noble ideals you claim motivate you to connecting taking medicine prescribed by a doctor and "subsidized promiscuity" without resorting to misogyny. Show us it is possible, even theoretically. The only way I can make a connection is if one ignores the Pill as a form of contraception and focuses on condoms: http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/sex-crazed-co-eds-going-broke-buying-birth-control-student-tells-pelosi-hearing At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does CVS.com list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?) Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn't cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know). And, that’s not even considering that there are Planned Parenthood clinics in her neighborhood that give condoms away and sell them at a discount, which could help make her sexual zeal more economical. Besides, maybe, these female law students could cut back on some other expenses to make room for more birth control in their budgets, instead of making us pick up the tab. With classes and studying and all that sex, who's got time for cable? And, let's not forget about these deadbeat boyfriends (or random hook-ups?) who are having sex 2.74 times a day. If Fluke's going to ask the government to force anyone to foot the bill for her friends' birth control, shouldn't it be these guys?

kalikshama -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 6:26:19 AM)
Maybe Rachel can clear it up for everybody: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/rachel-maddow-rush-limbaugh-birth-control-sandra-fluke_n_1318354.html?ref=mostpopular She opined that the more revealing thing was that a man who is having so much sway in a debate about contraception is seemingly woefully ignorant about what it actually is. "Sometimes people are being mean because the fact that they don't understand something makes them angry," she said. "I think Rush Limbaugh doesn't know what birth control is. I think he doesn't understand what he's talking about." She played clips of Limbaugh saying that Fluke and her friends were "going broke" because the amount of sex they were having was costing them so much in pills. "I think that Rush Limbaugh thinks you take a birth control pill to avoid getting pregnant each time you have sex, so the more times you have sex the more birth control pills you need," Maddow said, going on to point out that this is decidedly not how birth control works. "You just take one pill every day," she said. "It's a prescription deal ... you don't need more birth control to keep you not pregnant for more sex." Maddow said this was the "real problem" in the debate. Addressing him directly, she said, "You're bad at this, Rush Limbaugh! You don't even understand how babies are made, let alone how people can have sex without making a baby, and you would like the government to take over decision making on these issues on your say so and you don't get it. You biologically don't get it." She finished by calling Limbaugh a "dummy."

MDomCouple -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 6:38:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Maddow said this was the "real problem" in the debate. Addressing him directly, she said, "You're bad at this, Rush Limbaugh! You don't even understand how babies are made, let alone how people can have sex without making a baby, and you would like the government to take over decision making on these issues on your say so and you don't get it. You biologically don't get it." Before I say anything further, let me be clear on one thing. I think what Limbaugh said about Fluke is horrendously rude, over the top, and showed a complete lack of understanding about how birth control pills work. I am not apologizing, nor condoning, his actions in the slightest. Now that I have that disclaimer out of the way, so I can be sure not to be misunderstood, I think Maddow didn't actually pay attention to what Rush said. I don't see how she thought that he wanted the government to take over decision making on birth control issues. I've listened to him discuss the Fluke case, people's reactions to his comments, and his stance. He wants the government OUT of the question of who can and cannot take birth control, how its paid for, and who gets to make the decisions regarding it. He was on Georgetown's side, saying that their status as a private institution means they can make whatever decision they want to on whether or not to allow their insurance to cover contraception. His anger about Fluke was because, in his interpretation, he thought she was asking for the government's assistance in paying for her birth control pills. This sparked his comments that she wants to "be paid to have sex, and must be a slut or a prostitute." I've not heard anything from him about wanting the government to make birth control decisions for people. If there is a link to him saying that he does want the government to do so, please show me. I'll gladly change my perspective if such quotes exist, but I know that I certainly haven't heard him say anything of the sort.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 6:52:09 AM)
quote: kalikshama quote: tweakabelle So please, detail one rational or reasonable way of proceeding from the noble ideals you claim motivate you to connecting taking medicine prescribed by a doctor and "subsidized promiscuity" without resorting to misogyny. Show us it is possible, even theoretically. The only way I can make a connection is if one ignores the Pill as a form of contraception and focuses on condoms: Nice try kalikshama, but sadly it falls a bit short. TheHeretic, as he has twice informed us, proceeds from the noble beginning of a ringing declaration of the right to free speech, and of each individual's right to proclaim the truth as they see it to the cesspit of misogyny ("subsidized promiscuity") that his perspective terminates in . Your generous attempt to offer to contrive some kind of rational explanation only helps us with the false allegation of "subsidized promiscuity" at best. We're still none the wiser as to how we arrive at that point from the initial motivation TheHeretic so grandiosely attributes to himself. I guess we'll just have to hope the Great Man Himself sees fit to detail the intricate complex intellectual gymnastics necessary to complete the entire descent from noble aspirations to suffocating pooh. The necessary insights are not immediately obvious to a mere rationally-trained mortal mind like mine.

kalikshama -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:09:47 AM)
While I am watching the clips Maddow used to make her case, I'll offer this. Rush appears to have based his stance on this: Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate Rather than what Fluke actually said: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reproductive health care

tweakabelle -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:15:52 AM)
quote: His anger about Fluke was because, in his interpretation, he thought she was asking for the government's assistance in paying for her birth control pills. This sparked his comments that she wants to "be paid to have sex, and must be a slut or a prostitute." "In his interpretation"? Or "in his imagination"? Because there doesn't appear to be any factual basis for connection Rush is making. Even in your tentative defence of Rush: " He was on Georgetown's side, saying that their status as a private institution means they can make whatever decision they want to on whether or not to allow their insurance to cover contraception". Your argument thus appears to rely on a claim that Rush is able to discriminate between the Govt's role and the University's role, and that Rush confused the two roles. Or to put that slightly differently, your argument appears to rely on two contradictory premises. A far more credible explanation is the Rush invented the entire thing because it suited him politically, that Rush was malicious. Rush's history of personal vituperation and looseness with the truth, whenever he feels they are politically warranted both support this view. It is difficult to explain the enormous gap between the facts and Rush's vitriol otherwise. How precisely might one jump from: "he thought she was asking for the government's assistance in paying for her birth control pills." to she wants to "be paid to have sex, and must be a slut or a prostitute." without malice???

MDomCouple -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:27:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: His anger about Fluke was because, in his interpretation, he thought she was asking for the government's assistance in paying for her birth control pills. This sparked his comments that she wants to "be paid to have sex, and must be a slut or a prostitute." "In his interpretation"? Or "in his imagination"? Because there doesn't appear to be any factual basis for connection Rush is making. Yes, I am well aware of that. quote: Even in your tentative defence of Rush: " He was on Georgetown's side, saying that their status as a private institution means they can make whatever decision they want to on whether or not to allow their insurance to cover contraception". Seriously? What part of my previous assertion that I am not apologizing for, nor condoning, Rush's statements is not clear enough. I am NOT defending him. I was simply pointing out what it was that he was thinking (in my understanding of his comments, that is), whether it is right or wrong. quote: Your argument thus appears to rely on a claim that Rush is able to discriminate between the Govt's role and the University's role, and that Rush confused the two roles. Or to put that slightly differently, your argument appears to rely on two contradictory premises. There is nothing in what I said that supports your claim here. I don't see that Rush confused the role of government and the role of the university. Rather, it seems that he misunderstood Fluke's comments and what she was asking for, or advocating. quote: A far more credible explanation is the Rush invented the entire thing because it suited him politically, that Rush was malicious. Rush's history of personal vituperation and looseness with the truth, whenever he feels they are politically warranted both support this view. It is difficult to explain the enormous gap between the facts and Rush's vitriol otherwise. How precisely might one jump from: "he thought she was asking for the government's assistance in paying for her birth control pills." to she wants to "be paid to have sex, and must be a slut or a prostitute." without malice??? Malice may be involved, and likely is. However, that doesn't mean he invented her stance. It is quite possible that he simply misunderstood what she was advocating, it angered him, and he lashed out. That doesn't involve intentionally lying, simply misunderstanding. But, all that said, what does any of this have to do with my original point, which is that Maddow seems to be wrong about what Rush was saying. I don't see anything he has said that would indicate he wants the government to control birth control.

mnottertail -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:33:58 AM)
As is usually the case with the drooling imbecile limbaugh, it is an intentional misunderstanding, proceeding from a non-factual basis, and extending to untutored polemics.

Lucylastic -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:36:54 AM)
Misunderstood? Truly ? and hes getting big bucks to "misunderstand" now he is paying for his ignorance! Wow, I wouldnt accept that as an excuse from someone who has been in the business for 20 odd years. That truly is making excuses for him. Please show where he could have gotton this "misunderstanding" from?? from her transcript if you please. Im quite willing to read how he could have misconstrued it to the point of thinking she wants to have 3000 dollars worth of sex every month? Id expect it from a noob, or a moron, but him? only with malice, vindictiveness and misogyny ya, the queen of sheba is my real name.

Yachtie -> RE: The Voice of American Conservatism? (3/5/2012 7:37:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle A far more credible explanation is the Rush invented the entire thing because it suited him politically, that Rush was malicious. So Rush invented Fluke's testimony? Your argument thus appears to rely on a claim that Rush is able to discriminate between the Govt's role and the University's role Bingo. Rush understands the difference between an insurer making a voluntary coverage decision and one mandated by government edict which is what Fluke wants. As to what Rush said, Fluke wants government to mandate that her sexual dalliances risk, being birth control in this instance, be cost spread throughout the insurance pool. Imagine an alcoholic demanding insurance coverage for his cab fare so he could safely go out and get drunk, or a drug addict coverage for his needles. Rush's words may have been over the top, but certainly hit the mark.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625