U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Spectral]

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.

Actually, I stated the following -

Right, and I explained why. A circumstance where someone says something they shouldn't, even if it's stupid and misogynist, in a fit of anger, isn't the same thing as the fashion in which Limbaugh conducted himself. Limbaugh's notpology makes quite clear that he stands by his viewpoint that she's a slut, but just shouldn't have used a "bad word". I'll grant that there's plenty of people shallow enough to think it's about language, but every serious commentator I've heard and every intelligent person I know is well aware that the issue is the misogyny of the Limbaugh's argument, not just a couple words.

I've not stated anything about "subtext". That would imply that you have to read between the lines. The issue isn't that he said a bad word, it's that he's openly stating that women who use birth control are promiscuous. That's not only misogynistic, it's brutally stupid.

[Callace]

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.

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. You can take that anyway you wish.

[Spectral]

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.

Yes, I would absolutely think that just as misogynistic a position. It's an ignorant, illogical position, any way you slice it. That you think it's perfectly fine and I wouldn't care more or less reinforces that the reason people are defending Limbaugh is that they fundamentally agree with the misogyny part of things.

[thevolget]

Just to put my comments in

Rush's comments were out of line plain and simple. He also didn't have any of the facts regarding the issue at all before refering to Sandra Fluke as a slut, or whatever.

The issue that was being refered to here isn't about the gov't or taxpayers paying for birth control, it's about the insurance companies paying for birth control. Paying using the premiums that people pay into monthly to have the coverage.

[Spectral]

Just to put my comments in

Rush's comments were out of line plain and simple. He also didn't have any of the facts regarding the issue at all before refering to Sandra Fluke as a slut, or whatever.

The issue that was being refered to here isn't about the gov't or taxpayers paying for birth control, it's about the insurance companies paying for birth control. Paying using the premiums that people pay into monthly to have the coverage.

Great point, and what's even more strikingly about this is that Fluke mentions that this is health insurance paid for by the students repeatedly. Simply reading the transcript reveals that to anyone that actually wants to know what she said, and yet Limbaugh managed to completely misconstrue what she stated. Which goes back to whether he's brutally stupid (probably not), or just an outright liar.

[senshu]

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.

Great difficulty in getting it covered is the same thing as not covered? *You have great difficulty get MANY drugs covered with insurance companies, and almost always when you are using a drug for something other than it's indicated purpose. This is quite literally meaningless in a discussion of birth control. It has it's place in a discussion of insurance reform, though.

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.

I didn't say those words. And quite frankly she CAN afford birth control, so your implication that she can't is not making any sense.

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.

What do Rush's behaviors have to do with my problem with Fluke? They're not related at all. *I've briefly stated my issue with her in a previous post, that she is not some innocent law student caught in the crossfire. She is long time women's reproductive rights activist that went to Georgetown with the express purpose of changing their rules governing contraceptives covered by the university offered healthcare plan. Her article calling for them to cover transgender operations is just icing on the cake.*

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 really don't care what you, individually, have stated about him in the past. I'm sure you've had some choice words. But the movement attacking him of which you are a part, is*only*so riled up THIS time because of the perfect storm of a helpless little white girl who did nothing wrong. Which is a load of malarkey.

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.

Uh, no. I have not even hinted that you are racist. I'm saying this is such an uproar because it's a white girl. Not the same thing. I've attempted to address where you describe what the problem is many times, but you are unwilling to admit it's due to the language. If he kept a perfectly civil tone, didn't use any remotely offensive words, and just said that this congressional testimony by Fluke was absurd and that "they" (not her) are asking for the school to pay for them to have sex, then no: you wouldn't have even heard what he said, and we would not be talking about it now. *The language IS the thing, and it's*disingenuous for you to pretend otherwise. He called her nasty names, and that's a very bad thing.

Or are you going to insist it's just his position that is so offensive? That religious institutions that don't believe in birth control should not be forced to provide it? You may disagree with that, but is it really something that enrages you as this whole affair has? *

[Spectral]

Great difficulty in getting it covered is the same thing as not covered? *You have great difficulty get MANY drugs covered with insurance companies, and almost always when you are using a drug for something other than it's indicated purpose. This is quite literally meaningless in a discussion of birth control. It has it's place in a discussion of insurance reform, though.

You obviously didn't read the transcript - by "great difficulty", I mean that she didn't get it and the following occurred -

“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.

...

“I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room.

...

“Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.

I stopped reading your post there due to the obvious reveal that you weren't telling the truth about reading the transcript. Whatever else you said is irrelevant if you weren't honest about such a central point, and it results in you having absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[senshu]

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.

Okay, don't forget that we're talking about a university healthcare program here. So go ahead and factor in the exams and premiums (by which I assume you mean deductibles). Common, in this case, means usual: not generic. Generics will run even cheaper, but on average a months' supply of a brand name birth control is going to be in the area of $30 or so. Really it is ridiculous that they aren't covered, and that should be universal; with that I agree.

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.

Boy, whose side are you on? I thought you were in favor of religious schools and employers having to provide birth control. But then you talk about standing against the government if any laws infringe on freedoms, and it sounds like on this issue you're siding with the right. *In either case, that makes no sense at all. Birth control is not a personal freedom. If they were doing something crazy like forbidding women to buy birth control unless they were married, then you'd have a case for personal freedoms. It is not an infringement of personal freedom if the government doesn't provide something for you for free.

---------- Post added 2012-03-07 at 01:12 AM ----------

Just to put my comments in

Rush's comments were out of line plain and simple. He also didn't have any of the facts regarding the issue at all before refering to Sandra Fluke as a slut, or whatever.

The issue that was being refered to here isn't about the gov't or taxpayers paying for birth control, it's about the insurance companies paying for birth control. Paying using the premiums that people pay into monthly to have the coverage.

You are correct.*

[Dacien]

Yes, I would absolutely think that just as misogynistic a position. It's an ignorant, illogical position, any way you slice it. That you think it's perfectly fine and I wouldn't care more or less reinforces that the reason people are defending Limbaugh is that they fundamentally agree with the misogyny part of things.

Completely false. I have zero misogynistic leanings. At all. Again, completely false. I'm just seeing this attack on Limbaugh for what I believe it is, not about insults or name-calling, but about a seizing on language to justify a campaign to destroy a powerful conservative voice. That's how I see it, plain and simple. I think it's obvious an agreement will not be reached, so I'll put down the bat on this dead horse.

[senshu]

You obviously didn't read the transcript - by "great difficulty", I mean that she didn't get it and the following occurred -

I stopped reading your post there due to the obvious reveal that you weren't telling the truth about reading the transcript. Whatever else you said is irrelevant if you weren't honest about such a central point, and it results in you having absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, I read it over a week ago when all this started coming out, I haven't gone through line-by-line here tonight and I don't care to. You said "great difficulty" and meant "not at all". Good for you, that makes a lot of sense. It changes nothing, though, and honestly I don't buy her story. While it is possible that this could have happened, if her condition was that serious then there were steps she could have, and would have, taken with her doctor to pursue alternative treatment or to convince the insurance company that her claim was legitimate: it happens all the time. Yes it also happens that people get screwed over by insurance companies. You have to fight tooth and nail with them to cover anything for a non-indicated purpose, but again that is beyond the scope of just birth control.

[Linkedblade]

What exactly does an act of a member of congress have to do with the the nomination of a man for president or the election of the president?

[Spectral]

Yes, I read it over a week ago when all this started coming out, I haven't gone through line-by-line here tonight and I don't care to. You said "great difficulty" and meant "not at all". Good for you, that makes a lot of sense. It changes nothing, though, and honestly I don't buy her story. While it is possible that this could have happened, if her condition was that serious then there were steps she could have, and would have, taken with her doctor to pursue alternative treatment or to convince the insurance company that her claim was legitimate: it happens all the time. Yes it also happens that people get screwed over by insurance companies. You have to fight tooth and nail with them to cover anything for a non-indicated purpose, but again that is beyond the scope of just birth control.

You know what else would fix the problem? Georgetown not acting in a fuckwitted fashion.

That's really beside the point though. At this point, I have no idea what you're even shooting for - you know Limbaugh's wrong, you know he said vile shit, you don't like him at all, and yet you're irritated with people for criticizing him on the basis that they're putatively only mad because she's white (even though no one's said that's the reason and you've had multiple people explain to what it's about). Completely incoherent, in every single way. Bravo.

[senshu]

What exactly does an act of a member of congress have to do with the the nomination of a man for president or the election of the president?

Hell, not even a member of congress. But really the only reason this entire issue is blowing up (starting with the Republicans making a fuss over birth control) is because it's an election year, so I guess there's that. I didn't come into this thread expecting this issue, either.

[Badpaladin]

Completely false. I have zero misogynistic leanings. At all. Again, completely false. I'm just seeing this attack on Limbaugh for what I believe it is, not about insults or name-calling, but about a seizing on language to justify a campaign to destroy a powerful conservative voice. That's how I see it, plain and simple. I think it's obvious an agreement will not be reached, so I'll put down the bat on this dead horse.

That's where I think you're wrong. *It's the duty of political pundits to have some sense of professionalism, and he has none of that. *The man is a sensationalist who has enough sway over people to cause others to have those same views. *His message isn't one of "this lady is wrong", it's a message intended to give people the idea that young women who want contraceptives without paying the high costs for them are lesser individuals of our society. *That's where I take issue.

[senshu]

You know what else would fix the problem? Georgetown not acting in a fuckwitted fashion.

I agree that the Catholic church needs to revise it's stance on birth control. Until such time, though, Georgetown is doing what it must. Regardless, adults can manage birth control if they want to. The rest of us seem to do just fine.

That's really beside the point though. At this point, I have no idea what you're even shooting for - you know Limbaugh's wrong, you know he said vile shit, you don't like him at all, and yet you're irritated with people for criticizing him on the basis that they're putatively only mad because she's white (even though no one's said that's the reason and you've had multiple people explain to what it's about). Completely incoherent, in every single way. Bravo.

There's really just been you and one other guy claiming it wasn't about the language. *Just as the other guy you're arguing with has given up because you're being pointedly obtuse about it, so shall I. You're mad because he called a white girl a slut. Don't get hung up on "white", it's only part of it, not all. You're mad because Rush is an ass and has been for years, and you've had enough. That's it: that's all there is. *If you honestly claim that if he'd stated his case more eloquently and not used such vile terminology, you'd still have issue with what he said, then you're either lying, or an even bigger bigot than those far right-wing lunatics we all love to poke fun at.

[Spectral]

That's where I think you're wrong. *It's the duty of political pundits to have some sense of professionalism, and he has none of that. *The man is a sensationalist who has enough sway over people to cause others to have those same views. *His message isn't one of "this lady is wrong", it's a message intended to give people the idea that young women who want contraceptives without paying the high costs for them are lesser individuals of our society. *That's where I take issue.

Spot on point - this isn't about a poor choice of wording, it's about the notion that women who desire contraception, or advocate for others to have access to contraception, should be denigrated.

---------- Post added 2012-03-07 at 01:36 AM ----------

There's really just been you and one other guy claiming it wasn't about the language. *Just as the other guy you're arguing with has given up because you're being pointedly obtuse about it, so shall I. You're mad because he called a white girl a slut. Don't get hung up on "white", it's only part of it, not all. You're mad because Rush is an ass and has been for years, and you've had enough. That's it: that's all there is. *If you honestly claim that if he'd stated his case more eloquently and not used such vile terminology, you'd still have issue with what he said, then you're either lying, or an even bigger bigot than those far right-wing lunatics we all love to poke fun at.

Insisting over and over that I'm mad about him using the word "slut" or that it has anything at all to do with race shows your claims that I'm being obtuse and/or lying to be just pure projection on your part. I've already demonstrated at least one explicit lie on your part in this thread; perhaps it's compulsive and you're not aware you're doing it.

Either way, I too will agree to drop this, since you either aren't capable of getting the point or just don't desire to.

[senshu]

That's where I think you're wrong. *It's the duty of political pundits to have some sense of professionalism, and he has none of that. *The man is a sensationalist who has enough sway over people to cause others to have those same views.

While certainly true, Rush is not alone in this behavior. Not by a long shot. In fact, find me a pundit today who acts professionally.

*His message isn't one of "this lady is wrong", it's a message intended to give people the idea that young women who want contraceptives without paying the high costs for them are lesser individuals of our society. *That's where I take issue.

His message was both, and it's the second message that's the problem. Though I take issue with high costs because it simply is not that much. In fact, if it's actual birth control that a woman is after, you can even get an IUD that lasts a decade, for around $300. Just one example, sure, but her figure of $3000 for 3 years would take some very bizarre circumstances.

[Dacien]

That's where I think you're wrong. *It's the duty of political pundits to have some sense of professionalism, and he has none of that. *The man is a sensationalist who has enough sway over people to cause others to have those same views. *His message isn't one of "this lady is wrong", it's a message intended to give people the idea that young women who want contraceptives without paying the high costs for them are lesser individuals of our society. *That's where I take issue.

Rush has a show day in and day out talking about various things, and he has for over twenty years. In twenty years, you're going to slip up, cross the line, whatever you want to call it. Lots of professional pundits have done it. I think Rush has 3 or 4 instances in twenty years where he's been accused of crossing the line. I mean, it happens.

[senshu]

Spot on point - this isn't about a poor choice of wording, it's about the notion that women who desire contraception, or advocate for others to have access to contraception, should be denigrated.

...a notion which you gather from the vile language he used.

Insisting over and over that I'm mad about him using the word "slut" or that it has anything at all to do with race shows your claims that I'm being obtuse and/or lying to be just pure projection on your part. I've already demonstrated at least one explicit lie on your part in this thread; perhaps it's compulsive and you're not aware you're doing it.

I haven't lied about a single thing, and you are completely incapable of showing your problem is anything other than the wording he used. I've asked you repeatedly and differently, but here it is one last time: are you honestly telling me that if he worded his objections to the idea of a religious school providing birth control and possibly even to the partially fallacious testimony of Sandra Fluke in an elegant, refined and professional manner, then you would be just as outraged over this? So in other words, just having a different opinion than you on this issue is cause for ire?

Either way, I too will agree to drop this, since you either aren't capable of getting the point or just don't desire to.

Likewise. You clearly are too far gone here to even carry on a discussion.

[SinR]

I am a registered Republican... and quite frankly I am ASHAMED at my own party. Every time President Obama opens his mouth it seems EVERY REPUBLICAN has the need to pull a complete 180 on what he is trying to push.


Obama is getting 4 more years, and he doesn't even have to campaign. Republicans are doing a PERFECTLY FINE job of destroying their own credibility. Republicans couldn't pick a candidate out of a hat