U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[TechnoKronic]

Actually, almost all of it. The made-up cost she gives: $3000 over the entire length of law school? *Try $1000 if you insist on brand only. Her married friend who couldn't afford to get it filled when she learned it wasn't covered on insurance: laughable. Is that family existing completely on welfare and eating ramen every night, that they can't afford between $15 and $30 a month for the ability to have (relatively) worry-free sex? All while paying for tuition at Georgetown? *Her entire speech was a load of bull.

And, ironically, I'm in favor of all healthcare providers giving free birth control. I somewhat see where the*Republicans*are coming from in their protest of it, though I have to stretch to do as and I don't agree with it. *If it wasn't an election year, it wouldn't be an issue.

Unless you yourself are on birth control.. how would you know how much women are footing the bill???

Yes, that's all I said. "No, not really.", and that was the end of it. Don't think race is a factor? Can you explain how Rush has gotten away with 20 years of saying outrageous and insulting things, but this is the first time there's been THIS much backlash over any of them?*

ever hear of the straw that broke the camel's back???

this was that last straw

[senshu]

Nice assumption. you do this often?
read words between the lines that have nothing to do with the subject.
instead of missing the point, you are blatantly ignoring it.

Not at all. The simple fact is that you're going to be upset with whatever he says in the first place, just because of who he is and where he's coming from. Are you honestly trying to tell me that if he didn't call her a slut and a prostitute, and didn't say she should film herself having sex and show it to the taxpayers (all reprehensible things), that we would even be having this discussion?

[Spectral]

Actually, almost all of it. The made-up cost she gives: $3000 over the entire length of law school? *Try $1000 if you insist on brand only. Her married friend who couldn't afford to get it filled when she learned it wasn't covered on insurance: laughable. Is that family existing completely on welfare and eating ramen every night, that they can't afford between $15 and $30 a month for the ability to have (relatively) worry-free sex? All while paying for tuition at Georgetown? *Her entire speech was a load of bull.

Her statement was that contraception can cost $3000 over the course of law school. Do you believe that to be impossible? She surely didn't state that it always is the cost.

Believe it or not, some people actually do have to make difficult budget decisions during graduate school. Shocking, I know. Equally shocking is that tuition is often covered via loans, not out of pocket.

If those are the most laughable chunks you can come up with, you must have a hair-trigger sense of humor.

Yes, that's all I said. "No, not really.", and that was the end of it. Don't think race is a factor? Can you explain how Rush has gotten away with 20 years of saying outrageous and insulting things, but this is the first time there's been THIS much backlash over any of them?*

Yeah, that actually is all you said to me. "No, not really", followed by the implication that I care because of race. I already stated that I abhor his racist comments. There's nothing I've said to suggest that race is even remotely a factor for me here. It's more likely basic human decency that's the governing factor.

[Callace]

You can't simply push comments under the rug. I didn't understand what Callace was asking, but now I think I do. It isn't about pushing anything under the rug. It's about the people who get fired up enough to start social networking campaigns and advertiser boycotts. These same people who are fired up today about Rush were decidedly not fired up about a liberal counterpart making identical insults just 1 year ago. Why is that? Because somehow Ed Schultz's apology was deemed satisfactory? No, it was because the same people who are fueling the rage against Rush, and are the same people who let it slide when a liberal counterpart made the same slurs, are angry at Rush as a political mouthpiece for conservatism far, far more than they are about any name-calling.

Dacien, I'll be more explicit about what I was getting at:

You asked why liberals didn't create a vocal movement when a conservative woman was similarly attacked.
My point was, why didn't conservatives create a movement when a conservative woman was similarly attacked?

That is the difference between being biased and being misogynist.

I cringe whenever a man calls a woman a slut in public discourse, but I'm not going to make the effort to be vocal about it if it isn't someone I don't follow. That is because I am biased.

When your example had no conservative voices to defend her similarly, that is misogyny.

[Spectral]

I think because we're seeing a tidal wave of anger that doesn't reconcile itself with comparable liberal incidents, and we're calling shenanigans on it.

Yet I've explained that there aren't any comparable incidents, and I've haven't seen anyone actually dispute that point.

The reason people are defending Limbaugh is simple - even if they don't fully agree with him, and think he should have been more tactful, they fundamentally agree that it's time to do some slut-shaming of these uppity women expecting health insurance to cover reproductive health care. Well, that and plain ol' tribalism.

[senshu]

Unless you yourself are on birth control.. how would you know how much women are footing the bill???

Because I pay said bill myself? Because I work in a pharmacy and know exactly how much common birth control medications cost? Because I also know how much a pack of condoms cost (okay, not really...but they aren't THAT much), and I know that a woman is able to buy those as well?

ever hear of the straw that broke the camel's back???

this was that last straw

Ironic that he was crying wolf (feminazi) again, but this time it actually was a wolf and he blew it. It's not the straw that broke the camel's back, though: it's the view that he's picking on this poor, defenseless student. Far, far from it. Again, not defending him cause he's a professional ass. But Fluke is just a small-time version of him, on the other side of the spectrum, who won this round.

[Spectral]

That is the difference between being biased and being misogynist.

Much more elegantly put than my explanation, thanks Callace. I'd surely never assert that there's no tribalistic bias from liberals, but the defining difference is the misogyny.

[Dacien]

Dacien, I'll be more explicit about what I was getting at:

You asked why liberals didn't create a vocal movement when a conservative woman was similarly attacked.
My point was, why didn't conservatives create a movement when a conservative woman was similarly attacked?

That is the difference between being biased and being misogynist.

I cringe whenever a man calls a woman a slut in public discourse, but I'm not going to make the effort to be vocal about it if it isn't someone I don't follow. That is because I am biased.

When your example had no conservative voices to defend her similarly, that is misogyny.

Because the activist are predominately liberals. This isn't an insult, its just the way it is. Activism and liberalism go hand in hand in a way that it doesn't with conservatism.

---------- Post added 2012-03-06 at 09:36 PM ----------

Yet I've explained that there aren't any comparable incidents, and I've haven't seen anyone actually dispute that point.

I put forth the Ed Schultz example, but that was explained away with "He's not as important" and "He apologized better". I guess I'll just have to satisfy myself with that.

[Callace]

Because the activist are predominately liberals. This isn't an insult, its just the way it is. Activism and liberalism go hand in hand in a way that it doesn't with conservatism.

---------- Post added 2012-03-06 at 09:36 PM ----------



I put forth the Ed Schultz example, but that was explained away with "He's not as important" and "He apologized better". I guess I'll just have to satisfy myself with that.

I'm not sold on that. There is a lot of conservative activism in this country. Just look at the Tea Party movement, I think that's pretty significant. Do liberals take part in more activism? Probably, but to say that they own it is a bit silly.

[senshu]

Her statement was that contraception can cost $3000 over the course of law school. Do you believe that to be impossible? She surely didn't state that it always is the cost.

That would be a very rare scenario, indeed. And in such a scenario, the women is probably taking birth control medication for some other condition, and it would be covered.

Believe it or not, some people actually do have to make difficult budget decisions during graduate school. Shocking, I know. Equally shocking is that tuition is often covered via loans, not out of pocket.

Your point? A budget decision is just that: do I go out to have drinks 4 times this month, or just 3 so I can afford my electric bill? Do I need to eat out again, or should I make something at home so I can pay the rent? Do I need to go out and see another movie this week, or watch something on TV so I can afford my birth control? *

If those are the most laughable chunks you can come up with, you must have a hair-trigger sense of humor.

It's laughable, but not funny. I detest the type of person Sandra Fluke is as much as I detest a person like Rush Limbaugh. Just different sides of the same ugly coin.

Yeah, that actually is all you said to me. "No, not really", followed by the implication that I care because of race. I already stated that I abhor his racist comments. There's nothing I've said to suggest that race is even remotely a factor for me here. It's more likely basic human decency that's the governing factor.

"No, not really", followed by more words is the same as just saying, "No, not really."? *Got it. If it was basic human decency then you would have been calling his sponsors years ago, as well as the sponsors of the people just like him on the left. Instead, whether you realize it or not, this particular incident has enraged you because it's a harmless little white girl he's so viciously attacked.

The reason people are defending Limbaugh is simple - even if they don't fully agree with him, and think he should have been more tactful, they fundamentally agree that it's time to do some slut-shaming of these uppity women expecting health insurance to cover reproductive health care. Well, that and plain ol' tribalism.

I'm actually in favor of completely free birth control across the board. I have a hard time defending Rush as I can't stand him, but it has nothing to do with that blathering nonsense you've stated above.

[Spectral]

I put forth the Ed Schultz example, but that was explained away with "He's not as important" and "He apologized better". I guess I'll just have to satisfy myself with that.

I explicitly explained why it's not equivalent in #1654. The unmitigated apology does help, but it's not the chief reason why the circumstance is different.

It seems like you're still kind of stuck on this being strictly a language thing; it's not.

[TechnoKronic]

Not at all. The simple fact is that you're going to be upset with whatever he says in the first place, just because of who he is and where he's coming from. Are you honestly trying to tell me that if he didn't call her a slut and a prostitute, and didn't say she should film herself having sex and show it to the taxpayers (all reprehensible things), that we would even be having this discussion?

so, I see this going nowhere, you are stuck in your ways. when evidence is placed in front of you. I already said, I do not care, who, what where, why, and how he does things. I dont listen to his talk show, I dont pay him any mind in the media, he's a radio host that feeds off of negativity, and dishing it out to Americans as the eat it up.
I have no time or care for this sort of person. as he does nto affect my life. However, when youre attacking a private citizen simply because she wishes to speak out as American against contraception bans or pushing for it to be covered by the schools private insurance, which is her right, is abhorrent. Calling politicians media whores, political prostitues, insulting the president, or simply attacking minorities and women(as a whole), is his right of free speech i cannot argue that. I ignore it. However, single targeting a law student standing up for what she believes in is wrong on so many levels. she did nothing to deserve such an attack, beside show up to a congressional hearing to have her voice heard.

[senshu]

so, I see this going nowhere, you are stuck in your ways. when evidence is placed in front of you. I already said, I do not care, who, what where, why, and how he does things. I dont listen to his talk show, I dont pay him any mind in the media, he's a radio host that feeds off of negativity, and dishing it out to Americans as the eat it up.
I have no time or care for this sort of person. as he does nto affect my life. However, when youre attacking a private citizen simply because she wishes to speak out as American against contraception bans or pushing for it to be covered by the schools private insurance, which is her right, is abhorrent. Calling politicians media whores, political prostitues, insulting the president, or simply attacking minorities and women(as a whole), is his right of free speech i cannot argue that. I ignore it. However, single targeting a law student standing up for what she believes in is wrong on so many levels. she did nothing to deserve such an attack, beside show up to a congressional hearing to have her voice heard.

Then you are sorely misinformed as to who and what Sandra Fluke is.

---------- Post added 2012-03-07 at 12:45 AM ----------

I explicitly explained why it's not equivalent in #1654. The unmitigated apology does help, but it's not the chief reason why the circumstance is different.

It seems like you're still kind of stuck on this being strictly a language thing; it's not.

He's probably stuck on that because it is a language thing. If Limbaugh didn't use those particular words, then none of this would be an issue.

[Dacien]

I'm not sold on that. There is a lot of conservative activism in this country. Just look at the Tea Party movement, I think that's pretty significant. Do liberals take part in more activism? Probably, but to say that they own it is a bit silly.

I guess we could agree that Rush is targeted due to his influence, which would speak to the argument that Schultz wasn't attacked due to his lack of influence. This doesn't change the fact that the people fueling the campaign against Rush aren't doing it because of the remarks, but only because they want to see Rush go down so badly.

[Spectral]

That would be a very rare scenario, indeed. And in such a scenario, the women is probably taking birth control medication for some other condition, and it would be covered.

So, when you say that you read her testimony, were you fibbing a bit? She explained that the women in question was taking the medication for medical reasons and had great difficulty getting it covered, even though it putatively should be.

Your point? A budget decision is just that: do I go out to have drinks 4 times this month, or just 3 so I can afford my electric bill? Do I need to eat out again, or should I make something at home so I can pay the rent? Do I need to go out and see another movie this week, or watch something on TV so I can afford my birth control? *

My point is that you statements were inaccurate. When you say, "she can pay for Georgetown Law, so she can afford birth control", you're not making any sense.

It's laughable, but not funny. I detest the type of person Sandra Fluke is as much as I detest a person like Rush Limbaugh. Just different sides of the same ugly coin.

What, specifically, do you find as loathesome about Fluke? Keep in mind, Limbaugh's espoused misogynistic and racist sentiments for 20 years, has been caught with an assortment of illegally obtained narcotics, rails about the sanctity of marriage while being divorced 3 times, and so on.

"No, not really", followed by more words is the same as just saying, "No, not really."? *Got it. If it was basic human decency then you would have been calling his sponsors years ago, as well as the sponsors of the people just like him on the left. Instead, whether you realize it or not, this particular incident has enraged you because it's a harmless little white girl he's so viciously attacked.

You have no idea at all what I've stated about Limbaugh in the past. This is an incredibly disingenuous line of argument you're using. Fluke's race makes no difference to me - if anything, I might have felt ever so slightly stronger about it if she were Asian.

I'm actually in favor of completely free birth control across the board. I have a hard time defending Rush as I can't stand him, but it has nothing to do with that blathering nonsense you've stated above.

You've yet to even attempt to refute the "nonsense" from the post where I describe what the problem with Limbaugh's comments are. You've repeatedly insisted that it's because I'm a racist. That's disingenuous as fuck.

[Tychus]

Wasn't much defending to be seen. Sure as hell wasn't the outright destructive campaign to be seen like we're seeing with Rush.

Straw that broke the camel's back, perhaps. Rush has being pissing people off for a long, long time.

[TechnoKronic]

Because I pay said bill myself? Because I work in a pharmacy and know exactly how much common birth control medications cost? Because I also know how much a pack of condoms cost (okay, not really...but they aren't THAT much), and I know that a woman is able to buy those as well?




Ironic that he was crying wolf (feminazi) again, but this time it actually was a wolf and he blew it. It's not the straw that broke the camel's back, though: it's the view that he's picking on this poor, defenseless student. Far, far from it. Again, not defending him cause he's a professional ass. But Fluke is just a small-time version of him, on the other side of the spectrum, who won this round.

good to know you know how much "common" birth control costs.
now lets factor in the exams, the premiums, the brands (because not all women can use "common" brands) and the fact that condoms are not 100% in preventing pregnancies.

you see this as a game, rather than the undermining of American citizens enacting their rights to stand against their government if any laws infringe upon their personal freedoms.

[Spectral]

He's probably stuck on that because it is a language thing. If Limbaugh didn't use those particular words, then none of this would be an issue.

I've explained why this isn't the case, and no one's said anything to contradict my argument. Stop being obtuse.

[Dacien]

I explicitly explained why it's not equivalent in #1654. The unmitigated apology does help, but it's not the chief reason why the circumstance is different.

It seems like you're still kind of stuck on this being strictly a language thing; it's not.

All you said in that post is that you, and people you talk to, agree that Rush had misogynistic subtext in his remarks. This is claimed to be patently false by me, and people I talk to. And you said that Rush still thinks she's a slut, but just would have used a different word. This can be soundly claimed, so would you be upset if he said, "She wants us to pay her to be freely sexual!" No. It's the remarks people are seizing on.

[TechnoKronic]

Then you are sorely misinformed as to who and what Sandra Fluke is.[COLOR="red"]

and your conspiracy goggles are still on.