US Politics: 1950's edition

[TerraPrime]

One question, though. If this really is a matter of economics in terms of making insurance cheaper for employers, then what is the rationale for compelling Catholic employers to cover it at no cost? After all, they'll be the ones hurt in the pocketbook by it. I don't think the contract argument carries much weight because you could just as easily require specific disclosure at the time of hiring that contraceptives aren't covered.

Such terrible language.

The RCC's own decision lands themselves in that corner. All the other companies can, and do, require a copay for contraceptives. If the RCC doesn't want to pay for it, they can maybe relent on not offering insurance plans that exclude contraceptives?

I mean, what price can one put on the sanctity of human life, right? If the RCC's angle is that they're saving human lives, by denying female contraceptives, then hell, let them pay for that privilege. The rest of the world will go on with our wonton killing of pre-birth humans and our immoral violation of the rights of the unfertilized eggs. There's often a price to doing the right thing, so let the RCC pay for it.

[RWHamel]

Yes, but how many of them filed a patent. :devil:

[Jon Sprunk]

Pat Robertson calls for legalization of marijuana.

http://now.msn.com/living/0307-pat-robertson-pot.aspx

Now I've seen just about everything.

[Jon Sprunk]

Or another unrelated note, I'm wondering if Romney is going to be forced to ask Rubio to be his VP.

[Prince of the North]

Yes, folks, politics really does make for some strange bedfellows!

Bill Maher defends Rush Limbaugh :stunned:

Now, I'm saying this somewhat in jest. Of course, Maher and Limbaugh may have different political views but they both want to be able to shock and offend however they please and, of course, neither of them wants to be strong-armed by having their ad revenue taken away, etc.

However, Rush is still much bigger on the Right than Maher is on the Left.

[TerraPrime]

Rubio was briefly Mormon

I didn't know that was possible? As in, once you get baptized and you become a full-fledged Mormon, you don't really stop being one in their eyes? Am I wrong in my Mormon lore?

[Shryke]

Yes, folks, politics really does make for some strange bedfellows!

Bill Maher defends Rush Limbaugh :stunned:

Now, I'm saying this somewhat in jest. Of course, Maher and Limbaugh may have different political views but they both want to be able to shock and offend however they please and, of course, neither of them wants to be strong-armed by having their ad revenue taken away, etc.

However, Rush is still much bigger on the Right than Maher is on the Left.

It's not unexpected since Maher himself got fucked post-9/11 when his sponsors freaked out and ditched him.

[Howdyphillip]

I didn't know that was possible? As in, once you get baptized and you become a full-fledged Mormon, you don't really stop being one in their eyes? Am I wrong in my Mormon lore?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Mormon

It seems that you can become an Ex Mormon which is different than a Jack Mormon. The former has completely quit the belief set, while the latter is just not a practitioner.

[Ser Greguh]

Pat Robertson calls for legalization of marijuana.

http://now.msn.com/l...ertson-pot.aspx

Now I've seen just about everything.

It's not all that shocking once you presuppose a total disconnect from anything resembling a political reality. Big religion is - in theory at least - all about the gub'ment getting all out of people's bees-wax, and drug laws are inherently nanny-state.

Of course, the reason the religiofreaks want the gub'ment out of people's lives is to make room for their insertion, but such is life.

[Jon Sprunk]

Of course, the reason the religiofreaks want the gub'ment out of people's lives is to make room for their insertion, but such is life.

(Bold mine.) Intentional pun?

[Jon Sprunk]

Yes, folks, politics really does make for some strange bedfellows!

Bill Maher defends Rush Limbaugh :stunned:

Now, I'm saying this somewhat in jest. Of course, Maher and Limbaugh may have different political views but they both want to be able to shock and offend however they please and, of course, neither of them wants to be strong-armed by having their ad revenue taken away, etc.

However, Rush is still much bigger on the Right than Maher is on the Left.

Personally, I don't care what Maher said. I lean more toward Ron Paul's sentiment. Limbaugh didn't make a sincere apology. At best it was a half-apology/half-slap-in-Fluke's-face, and he only did that much because of the sponsor pressure.

The proper apology from Limbaugh would have been, "I not only used inappropriate language, I used inapproriate thinking. Ms. Fluke was doing her civic duty, and I dragged her name into the mud because I am petty and loathsome. I need professional help, and I'm going to postpone my radio shows and appearances until I've gotten the help I need."

[drawkcabi]

It's not unexpected since Maher himself got fucked post-9/11 when his sponsors freaked out and ditched him.

I agree. I also understand where Maher is coming from because of what happened to him.

But Maher is backing the wrong horse on this one. Limbaugh has the right to say whatever he wants but he's also a brand and people have a right to say they don't like this recipe anymore and the sponsors have the right to want to discontinue an item.

[drawkcabi]

Personally, I don't care what Maher said. I lean more toward Ron Paul's sentiment. Limbaugh didn't make a sincere apology. At best it was a half-apology/half-slap-in-Fluke's-face, and he only did that much because of the sponsor pressure.

The proper apology from Limbaugh would have been, "I not only used inappropriate language, I used inapproriate thinking. Ms. Fluke was doing her civic duty, and I dragged her name into the mud because I am petty and loathsome. I need professional help, and I'm going to postpone my radio shows and appearances until I've gotten the help I need."

I don't care what Maher said either, but I also don't think Maher made a sincere apology for what he said about terrorists not being cowards either. I think a country in full force patriotic mode was a little too sensitive for that salt in its wound so it made a bigger deal out of it than it should have been.

However, reactions to Rush's remarks and sentiments are completely appropriate, 1950's or 2010's or September 10 or 12 what he said is disgusting no matter what.

[DanteGabriel]

The proper apology from Limbaugh would have been, "I not only used inappropriate language, I used inapproriate thinking. Ms. Fluke was doing her civic duty, and I dragged her name into the mud because I am petty and loathsome. I need professional help, and I'm going to postpone my radio shows and appearances until I've gotten the help I need."

None of these fuckers in politics know how to apologize. It's always ass-covering and hedging and "if I offended anyone" even when you're supposed to admit you were wrong. Hey assholes, if your apology includes an "if", you're not fucking apologizing, you're just being a passive-aggressive little shit.

[The Anti-Targ]

It's not all that shocking once you presuppose a total disconnect from anything resembling a political reality. Big religion is - in theory at least - all about the gub'ment getting all out of people's bees-wax, and drug laws are inherently nanny-state.

Of course, the reason the religiofreaks want the gub'ment out of people's lives is to make room for their insertion, but such is life.

That's why it's better to have a theocracy, when religion is the govt they can't exactly shove themselves out of the way.

[Sci-2]

It's not unexpected since Maher himself got fucked post-9/11 when his sponsors freaked out and ditched him.

Well, he did say the hijackers were brave or some such.

ETA:

How to get Gay Marriage approved....fucking finally

"Telling the stories of heroic caretaking throughout the AIDS crisis and of committed relationships through thick and thin, advocates stopped relying on feeble appeals to tolerance, and showed naysayers that gay people shared their moral values and deserved equal treatment.

This doesn't mean that liberal equality advocates must turn more conservative in order to advocate to the middle. What it means is recognizing the common ground that already exists, in the form of what I’d call “sub-values” (responsibility, fairness, respect for tradition, sanctity) within the larger values debate around homosexuality"

[Ser Greguh]

Well, he did say the hijackers were brave or some such.

What he said was that hijacking a plane and flying it into a building was not "cowardly", and compared it with the "cowardly" action of firing at targets that are hundreds of miles away.

The comment was in poor taste for sure, but it's hard to dispute that it has factual merit. The 9/11 hijackers were a lot of things, but "cowardly" is such a bizarre insult to be thrown toward someone involved in a suicide attack.

Interestingly Limbaugh actually defended Maher's remarks back when he made them.

[Prince of the North]

None of these fuckers in politics know how to apologize. It's always ass-covering and hedging and "if I offended anyone" even when you're supposed to admit you were wrong. Hey assholes, if your apology includes an "if", you're not fucking apologizing, you're just being a passive-aggressive little shit.

Couldn't agree more! You know, the most recent case that comes to mind of someone handling this sort of situation about as well as it can be handled is when Ed Schultz went nuclear on Laura Ingraham. He got out in front of it right away, sincerely apologized to Ingraham and all women, took himself off the air without pay for a week (before anyone at MSNBC had to decide if they were going to penalize him worse, I suppose), and it all blew over relatively quickly.

Granted Limbaugh is a much bigger fish than Schultz so things wouldn't blow over nearly as quickly but it's still the kind of approach that Limbaugh would have been wise to try. Of course, then he wouldn't be Rush Limbaugh. As DG says above, Limbaugh and many others don't seem to have the capacity to admit any wrongdoing or sincerely apologize.

ETA: To change Graham to Ingraham.

[Ormond]

What he said was that hijacking a plane and flying it into a building was not "cowardly", and compared it with the "cowardly" action of firing at targets that are hundreds of miles away.

The comment was in poor taste for sure, but it's hard to dispute that it has factual merit. The 9/11 hijackers were a lot of things, but "cowardly" is such a bizarre insult to be thrown toward someone involved in a suicide attack.

Interestingly Limbaugh actually defended Maher's remarks back when he made them.

I tend to agree with you, but IIRC there were lots of posters on this very board back a decade ago who adamantly defended the idea that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards. It seems that it's really difficult for most people to accept that persons who are doing something evil and despicable can be brave while they are doing it.

[TrueMetis]

I tend to agree with you, but IIRC there were lots of posters on this very board back a decade ago who adamantly defended the idea that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards. It seems that it's really difficult for most people to accept that persons who are doing something evil and despicable can be brave while they are doing it.

Not a coward =/ brave. At least not under the definition I would use. Bravery requires fear, and if you legitimately believe your actions will land you a place in paradise as these folk did I don't think you'd be afraid.