Ron Paul says Rush's apology was about $

[Guns Guns Guns]

"I don't think he's very apologetic. It's in his best interest, that's why he did it. He's doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off of his program. It was his bottom line he was concerned about."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...-for-personal-gain/?google_editors_picks=true

 

[Damocles]

I don't believe that Rush is that short-term. It wasn't about the advertisers, those are a dime a dozen. It is more likely that there was an issue with some of the radio stations that carry the program. Cutting back on listeners would count, not losing a few advertisers. IMO.

There is little doubt that he was hurting the republican brand with it as well. The argument isn't about "sluts", it's about whether or not a religious institution can be forced to go against its basic foundational precepts. The Amendment 1 issues are real, not whether we are "paying" somebody to "have sex"... (as if that is the only reason for birth control.)

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I don't believe that Rush is that short-term. It wasn't about the advertisers, those are a dime a dozen. It is more likely that there was an issue with some of the radio stations that carry the program. Cutting back on listeners would count, not losing a few advertisers. IMO. There is little doubt that he was hurting the republican brand with it as well. The argument isn't about "sluts", it's about whether or not a religious institution can be forced to go against its basic foundational precepts. The Amendment 1 issues are real, not whether we are "paying" somebody to "have sex"... (as if that is the only reason for birth control.)

I agree.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't believe that Rush is that short-term. It wasn't about the advertisers, those are a dime a dozen. It is more likely that there was an issue with some of the radio stations that carry the program. Cutting back on listeners would count, not losing a few advertisers. IMO.

There is little doubt that he was hurting the republican brand with it as well. The argument isn't about "sluts", it's about whether or not a religious institution can be forced to go against its basic foundational precepts. The Amendment 1 issues are real, not whether we are "paying" somebody to "have sex"... (as if that is the only reason for birth control.)

No Damo it's about a patriarchy being able to control and sanction the personal decisions women make about their lives.

 

[Damocles]

No Damo it's about a patriarchy being able to control and sanction the personal decisions women make about their lives.

Not really, forcing religious institutions to go against their basic precepts really is a first amendment issue. Ironically, if the government were giving it away the church wouldn't have the argument as they don't pay taxes...

I'm all for gays getting married, but if the government were to say that the church had to perform the ceremonies my argument would be the same, the church has a right to their belief. I'm all for women having coverage for medically necessary birth control. I'm against forcing the church to be responsible for it...

It's pretty basic first amendment. The government doesn't have the right to tell any religious institution what they must do when it goes against one of their basic precepts.

I would be against the government telling you to follow their religion as much as I am against them telling a religion that they must replace their central beliefs with a government enforced belief system.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Not really, forcing religious institutions to go against their basic precepts really is a first amendment issue. Ironically, if the government were giving it away the church wouldn't have the argument as they don't pay taxes...

I'm all for gays getting married, but if the government were to say that the church had to perform the ceremonies my argument would be the same, the church has a right to their belief. I'm all for women having coverage for medically necessary birth control. I'm against forcing the church to be responsible for it...

It's pretty basic first amendment. The government doesn't have the right to tell any religious institution what they must do when it goes against one of their basic precepts.

I would be against the government telling you to follow their religion as much as I am against them telling a religion that they must replace their central beliefs with a government enforced belief system.

No Damo. That's just cowardly hiding behind a law and not accepting the facts. Even if they are practicing their first ammendment rights it doesn't change the fact that this is about a patriarchy being able to control and sanction the personal decisions women make about their lives. You can hide behind the first ammendment if you want but that does not change this fact.

Don't believe me. Try doing what none of the men I've seen who talk this nonsense about this issue being about religious freedom. Try something different. Try asking a woman what she thinks.

I'm sorry if I but I just don't get why women should have to give up their reproductive rights so some men can practice their religious ones. I don't get that and obviously from the response of the vast majority of women, they don't get it either.

Damo the facts are this. A Churgh's religious freedoms end where mine begin. So no, stop this denial nonsense. This isn't about religious freedom. Pardon the pun but that's an uholy joke.

 

[Damocles]

No Damo. That's just cowardly hiding behind a law and not accepting the facts. Even if they are practicing their first ammendment rights it doesn't change the fact that this is about a patriarchy being able to control and sanction the personal decisions women make about their lives. You can hide behind the first ammendment if you want but that does not change this fact.

Don't believe me. Try doing what none of the men I've seen who talk this nonsense about this issue being about religious freedom. Try something different. Try asking a woman what she thinks.

I'm sorry if I but I just don't get why women should have to give up their reproductive rights so some men can practice their religious ones. I don't get that and obviously from the response of the vast majority of women, they don't get it either.

Damo the facts are this. A Churgh's religious freedoms end where mine begin. So no, stop this denial nonsense. This isn't about religious freedom. Pardon the pun but that's an uholy joke.

I think you find it uncomfortable, but understand that first a church is an assembly of people (1st amendment), and those people hold beliefs (religions), both of which the government needs to stay out of, just as much as the religion needs to stay out of the government.

When it cuts the direction where the government can't just stamp all over those people you get all angry and say silly stuff. Their religious freedoms are exactly the same as yours, where theirs "ends" is exactly the same place yours does. You don't get to make laws that tell them what to believe or do, they don't get to make laws to do the same to you.

 

[Bonestorm]

I think you find it uncomfortable, but understand that first a church is an assembly of people (1st amendment), and those people hold beliefs (religions), both of which the government needs to stay out of, just as much as the religion needs to stay out of the government.

When it cuts the direction where the government can't just stamp all over those people you get all angry and say silly stuff. Their religious freedoms are exactly the same as yours, where theirs "ends" is exactly the same place yours does. You don't get to make laws that tell them what to believe or do, they don't get to make laws to do the same to you.

First, the issue has nothing to do with religion really. The Republicans expanded the argument well beyond a matter of religion with the Blunt Amendment.

Even so, religious groups and religious people don't get to do whatever they fuck they want because of their religious beliefs. Religious belief is not a license to break the law. I suppose it would be nice to grant religious folks an exemption from particular laws if it doesn't negatively impact other people, but there is no requirement for the government to go out of its way to exempt religious groups from neutral laws of general applicability.

 

[midcan5]

This was settled by the change in policy, the argument now has simply entered the political nonsense world of modern America. If we are a nation of individuals, then each woman makes the decision on her own, and since the issue touches every aspect of her life and health, it should be covered by her insurance. It is up to her how she decides to use that personal freedom. Every Catholic I know practices birth control, how many families as large as my parent's are there today? None. Why too is no one wondering at viagra and healthcare and slutteriness, I wonder?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

First, the issue has nothing to do with religion really. The Republicans expanded the argument well beyond a matter of religion with the Blunt Amendment.

Even so, religious groups and religious people don't get to do whatever they fuck they want because of their religious beliefs. Religious belief is not a license to break the law. I suppose it would be nice to grant religious folks an exemption from particular laws if it doesn't negatively impact other people, but there is no requirement for the government to go out of its way to exempt religious groups from neutral laws of general applicability.

A compromise was reached regarding churches, I already posted it. WHY DO I HAVE TO POST THE SAME SHIT OVER AND OVER????

The compromise is based on the Hawaii model, look it up DAMO

This has nothing to do with churches, they keep saying that because they are attempting to cover up the RADICAL legislation they supported.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

No Damo. That's just cowardly hiding behind a law and not accepting the facts. Even if they are practicing their first ammendment rights it doesn't change the fact that this is about a patriarchy being able to control and sanction the personal decisions women make about their lives. You can hide behind the first ammendment if you want but that does not change this fact.

Don't believe me. Try doing what none of the men I've seen who talk this nonsense about this issue being about religious freedom. Try something different. Try asking a woman what she thinks.

I'm sorry if I but I just don't get why women should have to give up their reproductive rights so some men can practice their religious ones. I don't get that and obviously from the response of the vast majority of women, they don't get it either.

Damo the facts are this. A Churgh's religious freedoms end where mine begin. So no, stop this denial nonsense. This isn't about religious freedom. Pardon the pun but that's an uholy joke.

Me either Mott. They are so casual about privileging some people's religious beliefs over the rights and basic health care of women.

I like to call it the "two inch clause". Because moral clauses actually mean, (let's say in the instance of the pharmacists clause) is that any pharmacist with a 2" dick and a bad lisp who can't get any, can humiliate yet another woman who has chosen to screw someone other than him, by denying her birth control prescription because he morally objects to it.

And these idiots support that. You know, fuck you. I am so done even arguing with these morons, and Damo and whoever else supports this, you're a fucking misogynist, and I don't have to be thankful that "at least they're not" out there calling women fucking whores and sluts, and everything else Sandra Fluke is being called still today.

That's why I insist you tell it like it is: BITCHES ain't shit.

That is what your policies come down to.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I don't believe that Rush is that short-term. It wasn't about the advertisers, those are a dime a dozen. It is more likely that there was an issue with some of the radio stations that carry the program. Cutting back on listeners would count, not losing a few advertisers. IMO.

There is little doubt that he was hurting the republican brand with it as well. The argument isn't about "sluts", it's about whether or not a religious institution can be forced to go against its basic foundational precepts. The Amendment 1 issues are real, not whether we are "paying" somebody to "have sex"... (as if that is the only reason for birth control.)

Stop lying.

It's not about religious institutions. They already reached a compromise on that , based on the Hawaii model, and churches will be exempt from paying for the birth control.

How many times are you going to tell this lie?

The Blunt amendment was the two inch clause writ large. EVERY employer in the united states would have been permitted to pull out their two inches and their "moral objection" to a woman's health care.

It's radical. Stop trying to cover up your radicalism.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

First, the issue has nothing to do with religion really. The Republicans expanded the argument well beyond a matter of religion with the Blunt Amendment.

Even so, religious groups and religious people don't get to do whatever they fuck they want because of their religious beliefs. Religious belief is not a license to break the law. I suppose it would be nice to grant religious folks an exemption from particular laws if it doesn't negatively impact other people, but there is no requirement for the government to go out of its way to exempt religious groups from neutral laws of general applicability.

Then the obvious solution is for the Catholic organizations to drop health care for their employees all together. The stupidity in your comment above is right on par with a good little Dem parrot. Pretending that it has nothing to do with religion when it has everything to do with religion? Which of your masters fed you that line of bullshit?

 

[Bonestorm]

Then the obvious solution is for the Catholic organizations to drop health care for their employees all together. The stupidity in your comment above is right on par with a good little Dem parrot. Pretending that it has nothing to do with religion when it has everything to do with religion? Which of your masters fed you that line of bullshit?

At one point it had to do with religion. But then the Republicans decided to make it about health insurance more generally with the Blunt Amendment.

And, of course, Catholic organizations are free to drop health care for their employees. It's fucking stupid, but they could do that. I thought that you would love that sort of thing with health insurance in the individual market being so cheap and wonderful and all.


Edit: Naturally, you don't address the more basic point that religious organizations have to follow neutral laws of general applicability. Like I said, it's be nice for the government to exempt religious groups from some laws, but this one isn't one of them. Womens' health shouldn't be negotiable.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

It has nothing to do with religion.

The original mandate already exempted churches and institutions whose purpose is “the inculcation of religious values” and that hire and serve primarily those of the same religious faith.

It was the religious hospitals and universities that were not exempted. SO, Obama made a compromise based on the Hawaii model which exempts these institutions from paying for the birth control, but mandates that the insurance company offer it to the woman for free and without raising premiums.

Only a real prick could continue to have a problem with that. But since misogyny is the underlying cause of this furor, and since only men like Rush and his buddies who continued and expanded the assault on Fluke today, are willing to come out and put the pig face on this, the rest of them pretend they are soooo worried about someone's "Faith". Which they openly privilege over women's health.

And they should never be appeased by actually going along with this pretense.

Bitches ain't shit - that's the actual reasoning behind this. Don't let them fool you. The facts speak for themselves, even though I have had to post them 500 times because they are roundly ignored. Why? Cause slapping bitches is fun! That's why. We can't have the facts getting in the way. However the facts clearly state this has nothing to do with religion. The idea that every employer in the united states can raise "moral objections" so their employee's health care is so radical they're afraid to state what they're supporting. And notice that when it's put in their faces that the Blunt amendment would have empowered every employer in the United states to deny coverage for any medical issue of either gender, they will say things like YIKES! I thought it was just the bitches' birth control. This could affect MEN! Then they say they don't support that. But they still support it...but they support only for the bitches. Men are 100% exempt from this radical redefining of the employee/employer relationship.

Now they have a problem. Do they reintroduce the Blunt amendment and outright state: this is just for the bitches?

Nope, they don't dare.

So the Blunt amendment will not become law in any form. The men won't allow this stripping of their rights, and they're just not quite bold enough to come right out and vote on a bill that states "Only for the bitches". They only reason they're scared is not because they don't want to do that to women, oh they do. But because women can still vote.

Now, if they can change that...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Not really, forcing religious institutions to go against their basic precepts really is a first amendment issue. Ironically, if the government were giving it away the church wouldn't have the argument as they don't pay taxes...

I'm all for gays getting married, but if the government were to say that the church had to perform the ceremonies my argument would be the same, the church has a right to their belief. I'm all for women having coverage for medically necessary birth control. I'm against forcing the church to be responsible for it...

It's pretty basic first amendment. The government doesn't have the right to tell any religious institution what they must do when it goes against one of their basic precepts.

I would be against the government telling you to follow their religion as much as I am against them telling a religion that they must replace their central beliefs with a government enforced belief system.

So what it if is? You're missing my point. Their using their first ammendment rights as an excuse to deny women their inalianable right to self determination. I heard the same kinds of arguments used back in the 60's, about the Civil Rights Act, and I heard that argument back in the 70's about forced integrration. That it was denying people (conservative white people) their first ammendment rights. They were wrong then and they are wrong now and if you don't believe me take up my challenge and ask the women of this board what THEY THINK this issue is about.

If Religious institutons want to participate in civil trade then they have to adhere to the same civil laws we all have too. That means they have to respect womens rights to determine for themselves what their health care needs are and what should be covered by their insurers. Stop hiding behind this religious freedom charade. By doing so you are saying that a persons religious freedom trumps another persons civil freedoms. That is totally absurd!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think you find it uncomfortable, but understand that first a church is an assembly of people (1st amendment), and those people hold beliefs (religions), both of which the government needs to stay out of, just as much as the religion needs to stay out of the government.

When it cuts the direction where the government can't just stamp all over those people you get all angry and say silly stuff. Their religious freedoms are exactly the same as yours, where theirs "ends" is exactly the same place yours does. You don't get to make laws that tell them what to believe or do, they don't get to make laws to do the same to you.

I find it uncomfortable? How the hell do you think women fell about some man, like you, telling her that his religious liberties trump her civil liberties? You think that makes them feel comfortable?

Go ahead, ask them Damo.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Me either Mott. They are so casual about privileging some people's religious beliefs over the rights and basic health care of women.

I like to call it the "two inch clause". Because moral clauses actually mean, (let's say in the instance of the pharmacists clause) is that any pharmacist with a 2" dick and a bad lisp who can't get any, can humiliate yet another woman who has chosen to screw someone other than him, by denying her birth control prescription because he morally objects to it.

And these idiots support that. You know, fuck you. I am so done even arguing with these morons, and Damo and whoever else supports this, you're a fucking misogynist, and I don't have to be thankful that "at least they're not" out there calling women fucking whores and sluts, and everything else Sandra Fluke is being called still today.

That's why I insist you tell it like it is: BITCHES ain't shit.

That is what your policies come down to.

I can't disagree with you. The very fact that they are unwilling to ask you women what you think and how you feel about this issue gives credibilty to your observation that these men who support this "religious freedom" argument are mysogenist. I have not seen a single one of them ask for your thoughts or feelings in this issue. There is something fundamentally wrong with that and what bothers me the most is they don't even see that.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Then the obvious solution is for the Catholic organizations to drop health care for their employees all together. The stupidity in your comment above is right on par with a good little Dem parrot. Pretending that it has nothing to do with religion when it has everything to do with religion? Which of your masters fed you that line of bullshit?

I think the stupidity of your comment is staggering. Fuck the Catholic Church or any Church who thinks that because they are a religious institution that they can abuse religious freedom to disregard the law and to deny other people their rights. Doesn't sound very fuckin Christian to me!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

At one point it had to do with religion. But then the Republicans decided to make it about health insurance more generally with the Blunt Amendment.

And, of course, Catholic organizations are free to drop health care for their employees. It's fucking stupid, but they could do that. I thought that you would love that sort of thing with health insurance in the individual market being so cheap and wonderful and all.


Edit: Naturally, you don't address the more basic point that religious organizations have to follow neutral laws of general applicability. Like I said, it's be nice for the government to exempt religious groups from some laws, but this one isn't one of them. Womens' health shouldn't be negotiable.

And certainly not negotiable by the good ole boy club. Their exclusion of women in their thinking just floors me.