Badmovies.org Forum

This story has been all over the news, and since I know this site, overall, tends to run a good bit left of me and a bit left of center, I thought I would ask your opinions.

As we all heard about ad nauseum last week, Rush Limbaugh was on the radio mocking the "testimony" of a witness the Democrats called before a mock Congressional hearing, who testified that birth control cost her $3000 a year and that, without government aid, she and others like her were unable to afford contraception that they truly needed.  Wondering aloud why she spent $3000 on birth control, Rush referred to her as a "slut," and suggested if she needed that much money to pay for contraception, she should sell sex tapes rather than putting it on the back of the American taxpayer.

Widespread condemnation followed, and several sponsors pulled their ads from Limbaugh's show, and the President publicly condemned the "vile and abusive" language directed at someone for taking a political position others disagreed with.  So Limbaugh apologized, but the brouhaha has still not fully died down.

Meanwhile, Bill Maher has repeatedly referred to Sarah Palin and numerous other conservative women in consistently vicious, ugly and misogynist terms - most notably referring to Mrs. Palin as a "dumb c**t."  And he has donated $1 million to Obama's PAC, sparking counter outrage among some conservatives, and calls that the money be returned.

Now, I don't care if Obama returns the money or not.  We all know the entertainment industry is going to be a consistent cash cow for the Democrats year in and year out.  But what grates on me is that various Democrat mouthpieces label Maher as "a comedian" while calling Rush "the de facto head of the Republican Party."  I have watched Bill Maher's show - in short bursts, because that's all I can stomach - and he is RELENTLESSLY political.  Yes, he cracks jokes, but so does Rush.  They are both entertainers whose focus is on politics.  To give one a free pass while calling on the other to be yanked from the airwaves is frankly hypocritical to me.  And to accuse conservatives of "waging war on women" because they oppose using tax dollars to pay for someone else's recreational sex is, I think, a gross exaggeration.

But enough of my opinions.  What do you good folks think?

It's a double standard. I recommend taking Glenn Reynolds' general advice (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/138644/) on this subject

simple- they both need this:
(http://img.memecenter.com/uploaded/Big-Cup-of-Shut-The-f**k-Up_7397ec4c8bb83e02987950e65c92d94e.jpg)
in a size like this:
(http://www.whereswaldon.com/images/ceramics/brenty_mug.jpg)

people like Maher and Limbaugh are just bats**t out of their minds (if they have any) and people who watch them are being stupid when they skew the news in their own personal way.

Or else they just enjoy the entertainment.

This site runs right, my dear.   :thumbup: :smile:  I have the scars on my back for being called the "leftist" (check out who's on the 5 most smited list with you.)  And that's only 'cause I point out stupid, I don't argue politics (much).   :smile:  


I don't know what's true of what you say.  I don't watch much TV, and though I know who BILL MAHER is, I don't watch any show he may have had and/or appearances.  That does not mean I am unaware of his presence.   Okay, a bleeped out "dumb c**t" is really about shock, not the word.  It's certainly in your face.  However, that is not the same as a live radio broadcast exchange where name calling of the LIMBAUGH ilk occurs, followed by a sidestepping apology including digs.  Limbaugh is a TURD.  

Well, there is something of a difference between calling a VP candidate names VS a woman simply talking before congress.  One's a political gigantically public figure, and one is not.  Also, Maher's tone is always less serious than Limbaugh's, and he's never had a several minute long monologue attacking Palin or anyone else on a personal level either (to the best of my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong).  There is a difference. 

By the way, I do believe if Maher went on a long monologue personally attacking a private citizen, he'd probably get jumped on, though I'd say not to the same extent as Limbaugh.  So, I think there is something of a double standard, but I don't think the things they've said and done are (in this case) on the same level.

On a related note, there's reason to believe contraception paid by the government saves large amounts of health care costs in the long run (unintended pregnancies/children are expensive on the healthcare system).  So, it seems like a smart investment more than anything.  It's obvious a simple economic argument will never work though - people against government provided contraception are generally arguing in moral terms, with economics a distant second.

The difference between what Rush said and what Bill Maher said is ther mediums each used. Maher's show is on a pay channel and as such some racy language is to be expected as opposed to a live radio program.

When a person like Rush complains at a person, then it's disgusting. when a person like Maher complains at a politic, then it's stupid. Now when a person makes fun of a politician, then that's where the comedy is.

I grew up and  live  in NYC, where  anyone who even listens to Limbaugh and watched FOX  News  is  considered  to be walking in lockstep  with Adolph.  There is  only  one standard in the media, with the exception of FOX and  five  guys  on radio like Limbaugh, and that  is left and further  left.  Of course, Maher has said  far  worse about  'private' citizens, but, he gets  a  pass. This  is nothing new and will never  change as long as so-called  'conservatives' are not  involved  in the arts, academia and media to the extent  that  so-called  'liberals'  have control for decades. Limbaugh shouldn't have  apologised, the first mistake anyone at a  disadvantaged  position can do is apologise. It will never  be accepted  by ones  adversaries and will  even open one up  to be taken out. When Reagan left he talked  about the ongoing culture  war, which, for the most  part has 'Repubs/Conservatives' talking about social  issues  like abortion and sexual behavior. Yes, this  is important, but,  far more  damaging is the culture  of  dependency, ie:where a  woman goes  to Congress  asking me and you to provide condoms and birth control and when one objects it's  presented  as an attack on women?  I think Limbaugh was just  used cause of  his  admittedly  dumb use of the  word  sl#t, he should have kept to the issue.

As has been pointed out, tax-funded birth control is cheaper than having potentially millions of women having unwanted pregnancies (for a variety of reasons). This would naturally include many single women, some of whom would, when given the choice between having a job and having the time to raise her children, quit work and have to live on welfare.

As for Limbaugh's comments, I think it's partly because what he said was a classic example of slut-shaming (a still all-too-common attempt to silence a woman/women by labelling them a slut and, by extension, discrediting them as someone worth listening to. And yes, it is an attack against a woman because "slut" carries far more weight as an attack if you have two X chromosomes rather than an X and a Y due to cultural history) and it demonstrated that he doesn't know how birth control works. It's not like Viagra. You don't just pop a pill before every sexual encounter; you take one pill every day at about the same time for 21 or 28 days no matter how much or how little sex you have.

As for Maher, I don't know much about him. Maybe he's just not as loud up here? At any rate, slut-shaming and sexism in general shouldn't have a place in politics. Or anywhere else, for that matter. A male politician is rarely attacked his sex/gender, and if he's running for any position it's extremely rare that his qualifications will be called into question on those grounds. I'd love to one day see the same courtesy extended to anyone else who might decide to run.

I tend to think most of them are just out to be outrageous and sell air time.  That counts for left right and center.  None of them are thoughtful people I would have in my home. 

In my book, the media is owned by business, and the right wing is more business friendly... or at  least is more OBVIOUSLY business friendly.  Their bought politicians are publically talking about being bought. 

Also, I do see on all the news stations that for years it was "President Bush" and now its "Obama", I don't care about the man, but respect the office. 

Ok, backing out of the politics.
-Ed

I don't care for Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher....both seem bent on shocking and hurting others for attention. I do feel that tax payer funded birth control kind of encourages women to be more available for sex outside of marriage. Some people just don't practice the best kind of birth control...abstinence. Now,some folks have told me that "It's gonna happen anyway so might as well be prepared".....I can see that argument. But I just don't believe it's anyone's "right" to birth control and that way of putting it really bothers me.

     As a Christian, I've really no problem with what Rush said; those thighs are supposed to remain shut until marriage, SCREW the current moral standards of this country.

     As a taxpayer, I'd rather not pay for some loose female's recreational consequences.

It takes two to tango. If you really want the entire US to go the abstinence route, maybe start putting as much blame on the guys for unwanted pregnancies. After all, he could have kept it in his pants. Mind you, that doesn't help at all with cases of sexual assault (sure, she might be wearing revealing clothing, she might have been flirting, but he could have just...not assaulted her. It can't possibly be that hard since most guys manage to get through their entire lives without doing it).

Rush Limbaugh is supposed to be inflammatory, that is the role and niche he has carved out for himself.

Personally, I find the way he attacked this one woman for arguing for birth control despicable. I do not care about the politics surrounding the issue, but Limbaugh's response was nothing but misogynistic. How dare a woman have the temerity to request support for birth control? As we all know, the only women who need birth control are "sluts," and if they're sluts they should have the decency to let us all see their sexual activity online! (Rush's words.)

The idea of a double-standard is ridiculous. Anybody who promotes these views should be held with contempt. It doesn't matter if the person is "conservative" or "liberal." This is the real world, it's not a one-for-one competition of who's the worst.

The irony of the whole affair is that the wholesale abandonment of advertiser support for Rush Limbaugh's show is good old fashioned capitalism. Support for Rush is now too financially damaging to continue. In fact, many advertisers are withdrawing from any show that provides inflammatory rhetoric.

I don't like Rush Limbaugh, but I will agree that he has been a political institution for years. But the public is fickle, how are Don Imus and Glenn Beck doing these days? Maybe one of these days we'll have actual political discussion instead of hateful rhetoric.

I don't have a lot of hope, but one day this nation might rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed.

Just a  side note  on  Maher, I  heard  this morning on a  radio  station that played  a  clip  of what he is currently peddling on his show. he has nancy pelosis  daughter who made a schlocumentary on Christians a  while  back depicting them as  rednecks at best and now she is  waltzing into the 'conservative' South and playing clips  of people calling  Obama  a  'halfbreed.'  Of course, I could  direct  her up her  to 'Liberal/Lefty' NYC  which has no  problem with the Nation Of Islam on street  corners  where his followers  routinely  go on about  how the 'white man' is the devil and  even joined  up in many protests, including the Occupy Folks  who talked  about the 'Jews owning the banks.'  Of course, when 'Bush', rarely  called President  up here in good ole's  elightened  NYC, was called a  chimp, murderer and  signs  posted  of him being hanged, the press was  either  silent  or even applauded  the courage of the protestors. BTW, Calypso  Louis  Farakhan  will be keynote  speaker at Berkely this  year and the Longershoremans  Union  on the West  Coast  gave an award  to Chinese  leaders  for helping the American worker. Yeah, there is NO  double-standard in the  media. there is  ONE  standard, the Lefts. 

the issue violated two of my sensiblities:  1. pick your battles- birth control is some pills in a plastic thing, it's not some it's not exhorbident costly thing. It'
s not worth fighting over.

2. don't mess with womens stuff-  all during the culture wars of the 80's, women of all political persuasions watched soap operas and read romance novels, which are more salacious and morally repugnant than any piece of modern art of rap lyric. No one said anything when laura married her rapist Luke on General Hospital. it's womans stuff, don't mess with it.

With all due respect, these discussions are not about women 'needing birth control.'

It's about who pays for it.

It's about personal responsibility in the decisions you make in your life.

There is no "right" to be sexually active in some grand, transcendental sense.

I find it incredibly laughable that so many arguments are made for giving women access to birth control.  The single most effective method - for preventing ALL the potential problems of being sexually active - is simply to abstain from sexual activity.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.  If you want to play, you have to pay..somehow.  Whether that "payment" is money, a lifelong commitment to raise the child you created, wearing the social distinction of being pregnant or having an abortion, what-have-you, the payment WILL be made.  Think of this in Second Law terms....not only can you not get something for nothing, but in our physical universe, you cannot even break even.

Or, as Robert Heinlein wrote FAR better than I ever could....TANSTAAFL. 

There's a consequence to EVERY decision we make.  I'm absolutely galled that so many people defend the "right" of people to engage in what amounts to irresponsible behavior and expect others to pay for it.  And that's exactly what this woman is claiming is her right.

Just yesterday, a caller called Neal Boortz's show  (far better than Rush's imo) and made the claim that individuality is dead.  "No man is an island," and "we all have to take care of each other."  This stuff is true enough at some levels of philosophical discussion, but at what level does individual responsibility kick-in for doing what's best/right for the community in which we are a part?

Rush was making a point.  He often sticks his foot in his mouth when he makes a point.  He's actually not the most eloquent speaker, and he often misses opportunities to make REALLY good points...  because he IS an entertainer and it's his job to stir the mud.

But if we are honestly looking at the problem/issue at it's most core elements, the point he (maybe inadvertently) made is still the key, central point in the issue.  I'm not defending his calling a woman a slut; I'm saying the fact that he called her a slut, and the outcry it has created, has completely sidetracked the discussion we SHOULD be having about her: her lifestyle choices, the consequences of those choices and the costs (financial, societal and spiritual) to the rest of us.

She has no more a right to be sexually active...for "fun" ... than I have a right to demand that I keep that percentage of my money she's sucking out of my family to pay for her fun.

And yes, there *IS* a double standard in the media.  We are NOT having this discussion, are we?  No, the 'story' is what Rush said.  If anyone brings up a real issue and asks the real hard questions, they are lambasted, ridiculed, berated or enormous efforts are made to discredit them.

The "left media" wants complete control over the discussion ... what's said, who can say it (who's listened to), etc.  Denying this bias is being disingenuous.

I think the problem is that  birth control  and all these  so-called  'private' matters  and  "keep  the govt off my body', which I agree, somehow  is brushed aside when it comes  to who should pay for your or my behavior.  The  problem is  also, how many legitimate  womens  issues were  usurped and used by man-hating, in some cases lesbians, to  destroy the male/female  relationship. They roots of the animosity ,of course, can be traced  back to historical injustices  committed  by men toward  women.

Thanks Mofo, I couldn't agree more.  What bugs me (about this) is not the politics, but the total breakdown of human decency the incident shows.  This guy acted like an a$$ and his business is suffering for it.  
 
This is words said by a blowhard hypocrite, but when do the stones come out?  Can we import some mullahs as consultants so we can all do it right, like our Saudi friends?  That'll show those loose wimmen.
-Ed
"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."

I will say that this entire brouhaha has completely diverted the debate away from what was a losing topic for this administration: its unprecedented efforts to force religious institutions to either provide or pay for services that violate their fundamental doctrines.  THAT is the topic that should be dominating the airwaves both left and right, not the fact that a man who has made millions by being bombastic and outrageous said something - well, bombastic and outrageous.

Well, The Left is  great  at diversion, Right, and I've been on both sides in my life, just  can't compete  they just wouldn't get away with being that  vicious.  This  was bound to happen when traditional  forces  lost control of the schools and culture, school shooting and the explosion of  teen pregnancy, became more  commonplace when Mommy and Daddy  govt. took over. Of course, the scary  thing is the eventual  backlash when people  will get fed  up with decadence and debauchery and may be seduced  for extreme religious  solutions like in Iran.

In a nutshell! It is wrong to try and force any religious institution to provide such services. If a woman at such a place requires(?) birth control then she should have to get it herself. Why should she expect them to go against their fundamental principles just for her desires? And if she is poor then let Medicaid provide it.

     Agreed; the Biblical admonition applies to the male, as well.

what if she is married?

Agreed. So no more state sponsored Viagra, either.

making it mandatory for religous institutions to include birth control in their health coverage is better than a woman getting an abortion and paying for it privately is it not?

Neither of the above.
Abortion, in my mind, is and always will be the killing of an unborn child.
Forcing churches that do not believe in contraception to provide it anyway tramples on the First Amendment.

So let's not do either.

Absolutedly-dutedly.  Right On.


"No more state sponsored {fill in the blank}."

Actually, I didn't even think about this side of the story at first. I don't know why, either; normally I'm fairly aware of this sort of thing.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives)

Also, http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/08/should-nuns-take-the-pill-to-prevent-cancer/ (http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/08/should-nuns-take-the-pill-to-prevent-cancer/)

If the news media worked as it should, there would be no sides being taken. News should report  and focus on one thing and one thing only - the proven facts of what happened and leave it up to people to decide themselves (y'know think for themselves). That may not be as exciting as all the political hodge-podge b.s. on both sides (left and right) but it's the way it should be.

Not sure I agree with government funding birth control but I certainly think they should be encouraging it.

indiana- right but it's quite obviously better for a woman to not get pregnant than to have an abortion.

Right.  I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

And, you know, there's one sure-fire way to make sure no pregnancy and it does not cost anyone else a single thin cent:

Don't have sex unless you want to make a baby...or, at least will accept it if you DO make a baby.  If you can afford birth control (really, how expensive is it, anyway?), the game is changed a bit, I guess.

But you cannot afford your own birth control, how can you afford your own abortion or to have and raise a child?

What drives the mindset that it's okay to force, under threat of JAIL, other people to pay for your own lifestyle choices, whether it's birth control OR abortion (or any other of a number of things this discussion COULD be about)?

right but that's not what happens. 

in reality people do have sex. wether they are teenagers or married people who have 9 kids and don't want anymore.

I think in some peoples minds the catholic churches views on contraception are THEIR, the churches, lifestyle choice. and shouldn't be forced on them. the less said about the rythm method the better.

Abstinence should definitely be encouraged. Far too many are having sex foolishly far too young just to be "in with the crowd", etc.. Guys should also be taking responsibility if they're going to be sexually active...they should certainly protect themselves with a condom and why not encourage more guys to have vasectomies if they don't want children? Too many people rush into foolish decisions thinking not with their heads but with other body parts...

Here we go again.  You're talking about thought processes and informed judgements.   It's not about what's moral or right or sensible.  It's about human nature.  And teenagers.  And foolish dangerous choices.  Fewer unwanted babies is better, as well as exposure to disease. 
I'll tell you what's cheap: condoms for boys or "men".  People will have sex, like the birds.  Your "threat of jail" thing is drama, and you know it.  Such drama would likely be welcomed by either side of a political debate. 

I'm reading an article on abortion now. Interesting that about 40 percent listed the reason as they already had children. money seems to be a big issue too.

This reminds me; I've been meaning to watch TOMORROW'S CHILDREN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EVdAOKjR-s), a 1930 eugenics movie featuring FREAKS' Schlitzie as a soon-to-be-castrated moron.

Wow.  You know what I think?  You set a low standard for people to strive to achieve, and that's the level they will achieve.

Everyone makes mistakes in life. That why, for example, our culture has evolved beyond things like teenage pregnancy (or unmarried pregnancy in general) are no longer crimes.  But that is NOT the same thing as wholesale acceptance dangerous, or irresponsible, behaviors that has life-altering negative consequences.


Yes, exactly.  This is what makes this whole "I can't afford birth control and someone else should pay for it" bs exactly that.

I love how both irresponsible behavior and the REQUIREMENT that others pay for it (financially and socially) gets defended as sensible.


Tax evasion is a crime, and can be punished by imprisonment, I think up to 5 years (which makes it a felony).

I'll give you a hypothetical, and for the purposes of this thread on media bias, think about how "the media" would report this case:

Suppose I refused to pay my taxes on the grounds of (a) I don't believe in publicly funded birth control and (b) I don't believe in publicly funded abortion (Planned Parenthood receives grants from the Federal Government to perform both of these "services" for the underprivileged) on the basis of religious grounds.

Would I be convicted of tax evasion and face the possibility of jail time, or would I be praised for exercising my 1st Amendment Right to PRACTICE the religion of my choice?  If my story were picked up by the AP or Reuters, what would be said? What phrases would be used?

You see, I think part of Indy's point in the OP is that MY RIGHT to practice MY RELIGION is only guaranteed so long as YOU approve, but that only goes one way.  I don't get any choice in the matter for others.  (rhetorical "you" in use here).  So long as my religion passes some sort of societal muster, I'm good to go.  But, if that crosses some invisible line....

Um, like saying I don't want to pay for the murder of unborn children...

Well, that just gets me branded a Kook or an extremist, or a right wing nutjob or fundamentalist, or "Christian Right."  How DARE I try to put my spiritual beliefs into practice by way of passive, non-violent protest of a behavior that I think defies humanity.

But yeah, it's just "drama" ....

That's right. 

No problem, my friend, I value your opinion.

However, the reason we are not having the discussion you brought up can be pretty fairly aimed at Rush Limbaugh. Instead of going for a reasoned discussion on the matter, like you have, he immediately jumped to a personal attack on the woman who disagreed with him. He did so by resorting to misogynistic bile, which a large portion of the public do not like. In fact, it makes them so angry that they will resort to boycotts of advertisers.

This brouhaha is now two issues. The first was the issue of tax-supported birth control, which you are arguing against. The second is the use of hate-filled rhetoric as a means of political discourse and entertainment, and its use in an advertiser-driven medium.

I didn't say anything about my opinions on the first issue, but it probably wouldn't surprise you to say that I disagree with your beliefs on several fundamental levels. But that's a larger discussion, and I'm happy you're bringing them up. This is the discourse that should be happening.

However, the reason I chimed in on the topic is that I find Limbaugh's method of approaching it awful. I see no reason that misogyny should be acceptable in public discourse, and make no mistake, Limbaugh's words were misogynistic. The reason that people are angry about his words is not they are looking to distract from the issue of birth-control, it's that he resorted to woman-bashing at a particularly vicious level. (He was also not the only commentator to do so, just the most virulent.)

It's this second issue I find fascinating. Limbaugh has always been a loudmouth a***ole, that's his job and the reason he's been popular for so many years. Now he's stepped into a pile of s**t with his rhetoric, which made a lot of people angry. Now advertisers are abandoning him in droves, which will hit him and his radio show in the only way people really care about, in the pocketbook.

Probably, he'll survive, he is Rush Limbaugh. I am willing to bet there are many people on both sides of left/right divide who would be happy to see him go, but this probably won't be the thing that kills him. That's capitalism for you.

What I would like to see from this debacle is the removal of hateful rhetoric about political matters from the national discourse. I may disagree with your point of view, but at least you approach it at an intelligent level. That's more than I can say for the sewage-level manner Limbaugh approaches things from. Get rid of it, it helps nobody.

I think to this woman, birth control pills are something she gets from her doctor so why isn't it covered like anything else? It's a normal medical thing. It's subjective to some people but so are alot of things. My anti-depressants are covered by insurance, i suppose someone could raise a stink about that if they really wanted.

Why, do  Nuns  have a  higher  incidence of cancer and why  Nuns, used  in that article and not say, oh, Muslim or women of other  faiths. Sounds  like another  thinly  vieled  attack on Christians and  Catholics.

I happen  to be a  Republican who thinks  abortion  and the pill should not only be available, but, encouraged  for some people.  :teddyr:  But, The  issue  here  is one  about double-standrad in speech  regarding  issues of the day. It's  like when I was passing the Occupy  Wall Street people  every day  at lunch from work, extremely  vile signs and rhetoric  that I saw  and heard at Zuccotti  Park, not to mention that  these  mostly  'white' kids  from wealthy  families  from Long Island and out of state  know  zip  of the reality  of growing up  poor and and immigrant. I grew up  as both and find it highly offensive and of the one standard the majority of media  has in regards  to most issues and it  can be classified as  Left and further  Left. You only saw the positive on Occupy, while the  'Tea Party' folks, a rally  I had attended, were presented as 'white, racists' at best.

Considering that fewer than 5% of all pregnancies are due to rape or incest, if the only way to get rid of abortion would be to allow those procedures, I'd do it.  But you are right - it is punishing the most innocent victim in the whole tragic situation.

Wow.  You've convinced me with your intricately woven threads of logic, the depth of your grasp on the larger socioeconomic framework and the keen ability to see beyond your own perspective.

My whole worldview has been shaken....    :lookingup:

frank- at least you got called something. As a Ron Paul supporter, nothing would make me happier than to be insulted, it would mean I exist at least. The media stinks and is on it's way down. What's amazing to me is as they've gotten less relevent they've actually gotten lamer.

At the same time, I'd much rather watch Diane Sawyer or some other generic newscast than one of the 12 trillion talk shows on MSNBC and FOX. I liked "Freedom Watch" but that's gone and I liked Buchanan on MSNBC and he's gone. 

Glad to hear it; I'm also glad you're cured of your longwindedness.   :thumbup: :smile:

I wanted to make it bite-size so it would be easy to follow.... :cheers:

Sean Hannity is the only one who has made a reasonable effort to give Ron Paul equal airtime; but Paul got upset with him over a question he asked and has refused to go back on his radio show.  However, he has had Rand Paul on the radio multiple times as a spokesman for his father's campaign.

Ron Paul is an interesting and courageous politician.  While I cannot support the degree of isolationism that he seems to want, I admire him for having the courage of his convictions.

I was talking to the man at the pharmacy about this acctually. We were talking about how here in Australia, Centerlink (a government orgasination, to pay for the un-employed, students, and dissabled) has a health card for anyone on centerlink so they can pay for medication they need at a lower price, (as the centerlink fortnightly payment is $200 - $500 for those on job seeker allowence, not enought for medication and other things) All Priscription medication is a lot cheaper than normal. I was on centerlink for a bit and noticed that all my Prescription medication was cheaper, exsept for birth control.

The point I said to the pharmacist was, if someone who obviously is not in a stabble financial situation to have children and is doing the responsible thing by taking birth control, why does the government not see helping pay for birth control will be a lot less money, compared to helping with food staps and what not for an unplanned child. It seems like the smart thing to do, for the parent(s) child and the government, is avoid this situations. Because a child does not just go away. Or is easy to deal with.

I sorta find it odd that birth control costs that much, but I don't know if she was put on a special type due to other issues she has.

Either way this guy who said she should make sex tapes to pay for birth control, is an idiot. People do not just have sex to make a life, and to him if it is that or the polar opposite off staring in porn, he needs his head checked.

Okay, it looks like I might need to point out some of the reasons why women use birth control, having had first-hand experience with it myself.

1. Preventing unwanted pregnancies, obviously. This does include married women and women who already have children.

2. Decreasing or eliminating PMS symptoms. Not all women experience it, and the ones who do tend to experience it differently. Depending on your symptoms and how severe they are, going on the pill could mean the difference between being able to go on with your normal routine or having to pretty much isolate yourself.

3. Keeping your hormones more or less level throughout the month. This can help with depression and mood swings.

4. Preventing and lessening menstrual cramps. Not all women get them, but they can range from "mildly uncomfortable" to "excruciating pain that makes going out for any reason impossible without taking powerful pain killers first"

5. It can help clear your skin. This can be a godsend for teenage girls in particular since acne at that age can be humiliating.

6. Making periods lighter. Homemade solutions don't work if your flow is heavy, and "feminine care products" can be very expensive and they are not negotiable.

7. It can help you regulate your menstrual cycle. Having it start when you're not quite expecting it to is its own special kind of suck.

8. Depending on what brand/type you're taking, you can have fewer periods. The reasons why this might be attractive to some women should be obvious.

9. Relief from Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS). More info on that here: http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/polycystic-ovary-syndrome.cfm (http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/polycystic-ovary-syndrome.cfm)



Actually...yeah, there is reason to believe that they may be at higher risk of ovarian and cervical cancer because they're required to be celibate for life. A cursory search of the net suggests that Catholicism is one of (if not the only) religion that requires all members of its clergy to be celibate. I didn't get any sort of anti-Christianity vibes from that article; if the findings are true, nuns' lifestyle puts them at a higher risk and this could be a way to lower the risk.

Don't get me wrong, BTW - while I am and remain adamantly opposed to abortion, I have no problem with contraception at all - my wife and I practiced it for years.  And, if insurance companies want to pay for it, that's their business.  My only problem is when the government tries to force religious institutions to pay for services that violate their fundamental doctrines.

As far as priestly celibacy goes, it is one of many Catholic traditions that has no support in Scripture whatsoever.  Simon Peter was, in fact, married, and Paul wrote to both Timothy and Titus that the pastor of a church should be "the husband of one wife and a good manager of his family."  Kind of far off from the original purpose of this post, but since it came up . . .

Living Dead Girl, BTW, You get that  from the Rob Zombie song? Anyway, I agree, birth  control is  cheaper than the costs  of a baby, but, isn't self control and not govt control the cheapest  of all?  I mean if one wants  Govt to stay out of her uterus as  I saw a  T-Shirt once, then , what the hell is the Govt., Senate, let alone a  guy a radio,  commenting on it and why does this independent  person  need all these people if they truly want Govt. off their bodies? I'm no defender of Limbaugh or anyone else, but, the point he was making, albeit a bit crudely, if you want cash for your sexual activities, why not just make tapes of it and sell it? I want Govt. to do the least it can for me, just watch the borders, pay the cops, pave the roads, bomb the enemy, and stay the F#@k out of my life.

I have to admit, Alan, social issues are secondary  to my conservative  side, I'm more of bomb the Commies, Fascists and Islamicists and pay cops more to club the bad guys on the head. :teddyr: But, If I have to comment on social issues, I think  Govt. should intervene as little as  possible, including paying for me.  They do have a role in oversight, so, we don't get gouged by insurance and 'Madoff' traders. In any event, my take on the specific issue, and I agree it is 'life', is better to allow an option to end it before it reaches outside the womb, in some cases, cause this is one damn, barbaric planet.  The  human race is inherently evil and  all of it's civilisations, no matter how great, are  based on killing, genocide and death. Indiviuals have shined and kept it chugging along, but, the long and short of it is as abhorent as  Abortion is, remaining legal is preferable than having innocent life, independent of the womb, suffering and creating more misery. 

The problem is, who are the "bad guys"?  Perhaps you'd be surprised at the concept of Fascism here in America.  And I couldn't be any whiter.  In fact, I'm so white, I don't tan.  If I have too much sun, I burn, peel, and remain white except maybe a bit more freckled.  Gross.  I've been persecuted my whole life for my white skin.  My "fair" skin. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdAj-dBNCi4&ob=av2n

And I yours, rest assured.


Well, maybe, maybe not.  Rush said what he said, an uproar occurred and he apologized.  Still, the conversation in the media is what Rush said.

Indy's question about media bias...the double standard...is a fair one.  Where was this same outcry - THAT WOULD NOT STOP - against Maher for calling Palin the c-word?


Well, I don't know.  I see your points, and am perfectly comfortable with the position you take on what he said.

But I must say that I don't buy for a New York Minute that that is the reason there is such a media outcry.  From my perspective, it's partisan politics and the conversation is fueled by the media.

The point is that others, left leaners, have said stuff over the years equally misogynistic, equally racist, equally offensive to anything Rush has ever said.  The problem is "the pass" they get.

THIS is the issue - at least the one Indy raised.


Well, minor quibble, but I think the reason he's been popular for so many years is because there are many people, many, many people, who are sick and tired of "their side" not being represented in the media or the so-called national discourse.

People who listen to his show do so in part because he's saying a lot of things...not everything...but a lot of things that they are saying but they feel "alone" because the newsies act like no one on the entire planet thinks like that.  People that believe the government should be smaller and spending less money, people that believe that folks should not be promiscuous (for a variety of reasons), people that want to just live their lives without all the nannyism that is occuring found their voice being heard when Rush became popular and nationally syndicated.

Give his show a listen, not to hear HIM, but to hear what his callers have to say.  There's roughly half of this nation that is sick and tired of the leftist media and Washington Politics, and Rush's show was the first one that gave them an outlet on the national airwaves....the "popular media' to this day deny they exist.


He's stepped in it before and he'll step in it again.


Yes, and you've got to ask WHY he has such a market.  Partly it's because he stirs the pot...no argument there.  But also, to a lot of people...they just want to know that someone else out there agrees with them.  Before Rush, they did not get that - at all.

Now there's Fox, Hannity and a few others, but Rush was the pioneer.  People did not listen to him in the early days because he was a shock-jockey.  Actually, truth-be-told, he's rather tame most of the time.  


Okay, fair enough, but it cuts both ways.

Indy started this thread with specific examples of the exact same kind of hateful discourse coming from the left, and there has been no outcry against that.

THIS is the frustration "we" feel.

Well, it's also why I've pretty much turned it all off...I don't watch news, I don't listen to talk radio much at all (once a month at the very most) and I have no interest in participating in being an audience for it.  The general media is every bit as rabid and offensive as Rush is purported to be.

They are offensive to all of us that happen to disagree with them and how they report the news.

If you deny that, you are not being honest and seeing things from the perspective of others.  (sigh, again, to avoid misunderstandings, that's the rhetorical you).

Fascism is not skin deep and takes  many forms, but, it comes  full circle and meets up with other totalitarianism, like Communism and Religious Fanaticism, like practiced in Iran or  those twelve, inbred creatures  who call themselves 'Christians' from that 'church' 'Westboro that show up at funerals and applaud dead soldiers cause they may be 'Gay.' It's a never ending battle both outward and yes, inside all of us.

(http://www.usinfo.ru/pics2/hitler-stalin-pakt.jpg)

This site leans decidedly to the right.

If Rush lost a bunch of sponsors that's too bad for him. He can't complain about that. My main problem those of his ilk is that he will tell an outright lie, and if anybody calls him on it he will say that it was parody. But at the time he says it, he seems like he's presenting the truth, and of course his cultists accept it as truth. He's not the only one to do this. There are lobs who do it too, but line are more likely to actually present it as parody in the first place. That's my perception of course, but back when I used to listen to him I would hear him do it. As soon as somebody exposed something he said the day before as inaccurate, he would hide behind parody.

It all depends on one's perspective, I read someone else on this site who said the site leans to the Left. It does remind me of the old joke, picked up by Limbaugh and others  I've  heard, about SUV's being out of control, rather than the driver inside the SUV? :wink:

I 've on  this site, the last few days, I think it's pretty  mixed and pretty laid back, not left or right. The  cottage industry that monitors FOX News and the five guys on radio that don't follow the majority media, says more about the monitors than any innacurate  statements made by Limbaugh. I have  read comments made by Limbaugh, when I heard them later, found that many were a parody and were purposely taken out of context to make anything else said as innaccurate. Yup, Limbaugh does  parody and does some serious talk, it's a radio show, not a news show. I rarely listen, work most of the time, but, what i find more disturbing than Limbaughs occasional  errors and over statements is the industry trying to stop him, what are they really afraid of being exposed for the intolerant ones, they claim Limbaugh and others like him are being in the media? This thread started out as a comments thread on a double standard and I repeat, there is one standard, the majority Left and further Left media and a half dozen guys on radio and one TV station they don't control. Yeah, I know who is the intolerant and the 'establishment', and it's  not Limbaugh.

I'm surprised these companies give in so easily.

Bill O'Reilly dedicated his opening monologue to this ongoing situation last night, and he was clear, reasonable, and eloquent.  He came down foursquare AGAINST forced boycotts and said that those who abuse freedom of speech in the public square will usually see the marketplace punish their actions.  I know that a lot of folks don't like O'Reilly, but his clarity of expression and vision on this particular issue deeply impressed me.

It was Indy who said it. At the beginning of this thread.

This is a joke, right?

Maybe right now it seems that way because a few of us are speaking up in a few concentrated threads.

Look back over the years, especially during the Bush administration, and have a gander at some of the stuff that was posted. Look at HOW it was posted..the words and phrases used.

For a very long time, Indy and I were the only TWO in a sea of opposing viewpoints that posted conservative ideology with any regularity - and him more than me.  Oh, and there was Cheez, but he's not around anymore.  Yep...I remember threads with Cheez, Indy and I being pretty much it....

There has always been conservatives - don't get me wrong - but they mostly kept views to themselves unless/until really kinda pushed.

There are STILL plenty of leftists, and indeed outright socialists, on this forum. 

I myself am a Moderate and can see good points from both sides. Yes,I have been called "fence-sitter" or "waffler" or "indecisive" but I personally know a lot of folks with view points similar to mine. I'm as likely to vote Democratic as Republican. However,my views on abortion are rock solid conservative....it's murder and government paid abortions would be an insult. As for birth control,it isn't a "right" and should not be forced upon a Christian based business or church. Now,I'm no saint by any stretch of the imagination and I wasn't a virgin when Alan and I married....in fact I was never married to my daughter's father. But I'm so very grateful for my beloved Sarah and would do it again in a heart beat. Does that make me a hypocrit? Perhaps but I was deeply in love with her father back then and responsible for my own lack of birth control.....plus we were engaged. That just didn't work out and now I have a great husband who loves my daughter as his own.

I don't think Flick is joking.  Inspect the feedback trail.  Much of my own leads to political threads.  You have to go back a few years, though. 

I can't disagree with just about anything you say.  I will say you describe my own feelings on a lot of hot topics, and I lean right on a few that might surprise.  I despise guns.  I don't want people to have people-killers, but I've espoused my opinions over the years on this forum and I'll just say, I appreciate the humanity and sense of your response. 

I consider Corporatism, which does seem to exist on some level in this world today, akin to Fascism. Others though might not. At the same time, I don't think all corporations are bad but I do not like how money is manipulated sometimes by those with power without consideration of things like pride in one's nation, ethics, principles or values. It's too much about the almighty dollar and no one too often cares where the blood money comes from. Then you have banks manipulating and creating dollars as needed and there's more cash in credit in the world today than actually physically exists.

I've been called a Socialist (I'm certainly happy we have the social programs we do in this country) and I guess I've leaned to the left all my life but that doesn't mean I would never, ever vote Conservative. I'd consider both views and what the different politicians have to offer. I'd weigh the different choices before making a decision. Unfortunately the different parties too often seem too much alike to me nowadays. We have overpaid politicians who never seem to cut their own salaries, benefits, whathaveyou but don't mind dishing it out to others. Doesn't matter who's in power, they all tend to do the same. Either try and save and cutback or spend, spend, spend and build up debt only to go through the cycle again and again from one party to the next.

I think there are times government make good decisions and times they make bad, again doesn't matter who's in power. Wherever you are though, there's the potential to lose freedoms if one doesn't sometimes fight to protect them. 

I definitely believe in birth control. Most of my life I've been anti-abortion but I am at the same time in favor of keeping abortion clinics open. Abortion will happen regardless and if it's to be done, it should be done as safe as possible. I am against abortion as a means of birth control however.

Gravekeeper raises some interesting points in that birth control meds can sometimes be used to treat other conditions in addition to just the obvious use.

No, I'm not joking. Most of the political commentary, at least from those that are taking the time to post, tend to lean to the right. It's not quite as black and white as that, as there are also a number of members here who demonstrate less partisan thinking and avoid the liberal/conservative prisms for the most part.

Well, In NYC, I'm a  fascist, when I was in South Carolina I was called a  'liberal', same opinions, different state. Of course, in Tehran, we'd both be dead or in jail.

Excellent point. Yes, I am a capitalist pig if I'm among liberals, but around conservatives I often get labeled a liberal. Either way I win.  :wink:

You are neither liberal, nor conservative, Flick.  You are just simply . . . .

the most interesting person on this board!

(http://cdn.images.1.ranker.com/user_node_img/6398/1000134035/full/the-most-interesting-man-on-beer-photo-u1.jpg)

this is awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_9J5cJwkLU

"theres no difference between those welfare queens, wall street, the defense contractors...[it's] the entitlement culture in America"

both sides are already whining about this

She has  a point, however, would she even be on TV if her Mommy wasn't Pelosi?  :wink:  Bill Maher, anyone boycotting him? :teddyr:

Capitalism can be used by anyone,  just look at Communist  China. :teddyr: BTW, What do we win, my hope is to be left alone.

kind of makes it more impressive though. She's challenging liberals on this issue and her mother symbolizes that establishment as much as anyone.

Well, count me as very unimpressed. It's  like Carville and Mary Matalin denoucing each  others 'side' while laughing all the way to the bank. The OWS crowd denouncing the rich and 'racism' while being mostly from rich, 'white' familes  from Long Island and parts  elsewhere is also unimpressive to me.

Nancy Pelosi creeps me out...she should have her own horror movie. :wink:

I think what  creeps  me out the most about her is her personality, that  lock jaw smile is hiding bodies. :bouncegiggle:

I don't understand American conservatives.
I do believe Maher has more right to call himself a comedian than Limbaugh.
Also, I believe contraception is everyone's business, and it should be provided for people.

Don't take this as a personal attack, please, but I disagree with most republican politics.
That doesn't mean I necessarily support the democrats.

Then again, I live in a different country.

Yet in America, some of the tax you pay goes to religious institutions, if I'm not mistaken. Even if you don't agree with it's teachings. Why is that okay?

Contraception is  everyone's business and should be provided  for people?  Don't take this  personally, but, I disgree with that statement  strongly and want people  to stay out of my business, until and unless, I ask them for help.

Churches are exempt  from taxes. It all goes  back to founding when many religious  poeple escaped  religious persecution from Europe and other places  later on.

Yes, I know they are exempt.
What I'm saying is that they shouldn't be extempt.
What I meant is, contraception should be available for everybody, at an affordable price.

indiana
was the cost of it included in your health plan?

frank81
I'ts the opposite of that. It's like Carville denouncing his own side rather than his wifes,  or OWS people denouncing the utopian beliefs of some of its members.

So what's with wrong medicare is my question. I mean, health insurance to everybody seems like a good legit reason to keep it, yet republicans want to get rid of it confuses me? :question:

Actually, Obama's health plan largely defunds Medicare, while Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan would save it!
The problem with Medicare is that, if unreformed, it is going to bloat up to such enormous size as the postwar "baby boomers" retire that, together with Social Security, it will by the end of the decade account for almost 100% of the government's tax revenues.  Not one single Democratic proposal makes any effort to address entitlements, other than to keep promising MORE free goodies to the elderly, the poor, and the ignorant so that they will keep voting Democratic.  Meanwhile, the segment of the population that actually PAYS taxes is projected to continue shrinking, and the budget deficit to continue growing.  Basically, as Margaret Thatcher said long ago, the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money.

I turned it all off years ago. The media circus that is mainstream cable news is anathema to me, I don't get the sense that they are even trying for objectivity anymore. I now get my news from a multitude of outlets, and I am always aware of the position the person reporting the news is coming from.

All mass news outlets are sensationalistic. They have to be because news programs are vehicles for selling advertising dollars. Selling papers (or TV time) is profitable because it sells advertising space. That is the model all newspapers follow. The money is not papers sold, it's in advertising space sold. The circulation figures are only a metric for how much the advertisers are willing to spend. In this sense, journalism in this country is fatally flawed.

That's not to say important articles can't be published.

Rush Limbaugh came to prominence in the midst of a communication revolution. The people who were allowed to broadcast in this country used to be so tightly controlled. Two or three networks presenting the news used to be the norm. Limbaugh found a new outlet, AM talk radio, and carved an empire.

Now we have an even broader outlet, the internet, and it's made shows like Rush's less and less relevant.

So now, if you're lucky enough to be a person with access to the internet, you have a broader base of communication that was ever before possible. There is, pardon my French, a metric s**t ton of people who are willing to talk about conservatism from your point of view. Limbaugh becomes less relevant because he comes across as a provocateur using conservative issues as an excuse to remain on the air. He's flailing, a dinosaur doomed to die an ignoble death, which he's pretty much cemented for himself with his clumsy antics.

The less you think of "the media" as a monolithic entity the better. I find it incredibly interesting that everybody seems to be watching the same news sources, and yet those who consider themselves "conservative" find a "liberal" bias, and those who consider themselves "liberal" watch the exact same news sources and find a "conservative" bias.

Whatever. There is a revolution in human communication happening right now. Intelligent conservative thought is no longer solely the province of people like Rush Limbaugh. He's a court jester. There's no reason to go along with him when he spouts hateful rhetoric for ratings, not when there is literally a whole world of intelligent criticism happening. He is now actively harmful to the beliefs he professes to spout for.

This entire thread is a fine example of communication that was not previously possible. We're now arguing directly at a level that would not have been possible 20 years ago. No need for Limbaugh.

Carville  has criticised  his  'own'  side and Matalin has criticised  her side, as Woody Allen said in one of  his movies, it's a  sham   of a lie of a sham. I don't think OWS has any utopian ideas, it's same old communism that killed a hundred million last century, no thanks.

communism was a utopian idea.


Also, wasn't Maher kicked off ABC post 9/11?

The problem with the media starts in academia, another institution  in society  virtually run by the Left and far-Left. This is the reason honest debate has become a shouting match for decades in post-WW 2 industrial  societies from here to Europe, let alone the shooting wars  in South America, Asia and Africa. The scare tactics  work better  for the Left cause so-called  'conservatives'  have  been way too civil to them, not  too nasty. Limbaugh is  tame  and often too  concerned  with  himself, than  to really do any damage to those who have damaged  all of us in the end. I was on the Left in my youth and know they use all avenues and excuse all  players, including genocide to get to the position of power they have today. One does have to read between the lines, unfortunately, the lines are mostly controlled by one side and it's not mine.

You make some very good points, but I wanted to mention something about Limbaugh's continuing relevance vs us having our voices via the 'Net at large.

"They" listen to Rush...they certainly (mis)quote him often enough.  Rush's name is mentioned in Congressional hearings and debate and soundbites having to do with serious issues far more than mine.  I don't hear Nancy Pelosi complaining about what ulthar on badmovies.org wrote on the issue of government sponsored birth control.

There are a BUNCH of people who continue to feel as though their voice is not heard, that they are marginalized.  Rush gives them a voice on the national stage.  THAT is why he remains popular (I don't think his popularity is in significant decline; he still leads the ratings anyway).

The problem with the 'Net is the noise.  For every 1 person saying something that makes sense or for every decent, civilized debate on a controversial topic, there are thousands upon thousands of sites pretty much dedicated to nothing short of either silencing the opponent and/or ridiculing any opposing viewpoint.

I posted one message on Democratic Underground several years ago and got my answer.  Someone had posted some vile, ugly things about "all conservatives."  I posted a very brief, very general description of myself that I thought at the time might illustrate to an intellectually honest person devoted to truth-seeking debate that the over-generalization made about conservatives was wrong on its face.

The reply to my post was "I don't care about any of that."  Nope, no debate, no discourse.  At a time when MoveOn.org and DemocraticUnderground were getting a lot of "pop press,"  even to the point of being elevated to 'mainstream' status, the goal was pure and simple: stifle any and all message that opposes our own.

That's what conservatives hear on the news every day.  Yes, liberals and conservatives listen to the same news sources and both claim bias.  I find this a farcical abomination to intellectual honesty.  There is no way on God's Blue/Green Earth ANYONE can claim that the broadcast networks and the cable network news shows give conservative and libertarian viewpoints a far shake.

And THAT is why Rush remains on the air, and intensely popular, after over 20 years.

Geez...look at how FOX News and Rush himself are so hated!  There are people/organizations that really believe both of these "new sources" should be banned from the air - SIMPLY because they disagree with the party line that comes from all the other sources.  Look at the contrast...neither Rush nor any other talk radio personality I've heard has made the claim that Air America or MS NBC be banned from broadcasting simply on the basis of differing viewpoints.

That alone is a prime example of the "bias" that we conservatives and libertarians see.

If anybody is feeling like their voice is not heard, boo hoo for them. We have communication technology that makes such a complaint irrelevant. If they are not being heard, I'm sorry, but it's because they are lazy, and tough s**t for them if they lose their "hero" that does their thinking for them. They might actually have to think for themselves for a change. What a travesty.

Wow.  Way to marginalize several million people.

I'm talking about having both sides represented in the editorializing of news stories.  Rush Limbaugh filled a void twenty some years ago (and to some extent still does, though admittedly less of one), and if you listen to his callers over the last 20 years....a void they really wanted filling.

He gave NATIONAL voice to their opinions and interpretations of the news and things politicians were saying.

He's not their hero.  He does not do their thinking FOR them...geez.  The mantra that has been repeated by so many of them over the years is "you are saying what'd I'd be saying if *I* had a radio show."

No One Else thinks for me.  Period.  I think I've proven my own ability to do that here on this forum in the past 12-14 years.  I resent the implication that just because I happen to agree with a lot of stuff he says about the size and role of government that I am somehow merely a drone following his every command.

A few years ago, I had occasion to research the demographics of his audience.  They are among the most highly educated and more than statistically represented in professional fields of any audience in any national stage medium.

Quite frankly, how dare you assume any of these people are having their thinking done for them....just because they want their viewpoint represented in the national discourse.

This is exactly why our nation is so polarized on very important issues.  People are lazy?  Because they enjoy hearing someone on a nationally syndicated broadcast radio show say what they would say about a news story if they had a nationally syndicated broadcast radio show?

Just.  Wow.

Communism was never a utopian idea to me. I don't want to live in a  world 'from each according to their ability TO each according to their needs', that's  a  recipe for genocide and slavery.

Bill Maher, like the Dixie Chicks made a career or persecution that didn't exist, supported by a media that hated Bush and the people  like me who voted for him. He was let go cause of low ratings and he went to some cable stations, where  to this day he spews his views. He lost nothing.

You do  have a point, I've often said militant action on the so-called  'right' is the only way to be heard, worked wonders for the left.  But, I don't agree it's cause the so-called  conservatives are lazy, just the opposite, most work hard and pay huge amounts keeping the institutions like University,arts and media in business and therein lies the problem. Those institutions are the breeding  ground for those who hate them and control the very places that grant the time to do further damage. It's a bit of a condescending view to say cause one pronounces ideas many agree with that somehow the thinking is done for them.

Wow.  :thumbup: :smile:

Kind of off topic, but it's been my experience that highly professional and educated does not always translate to having common sense.

 :twirl:

[This is not a slight against anyone in particular]


Anyways back on topic, Limbaugh's comments were pretty pathetic, but since I don't watch/listen to Maher I can't comment on the double standards thing.  Though based on Indy's initial comment; Maher calling Palin names in what I'm assuming was done for laughs vs Limbaugh lambasting a woman over her use of contrapception in quite a personal, misdirected attack don't seem on the same level to me and I'd feel the same if it was the other way around too.  Both are pathetic but one cuts alot deeper than the other in my mind so comparing the two is apples and oranges.

Wow, man, just Wow.. :bouncegiggle: 

:thumbup: :smile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieoFkuu_aNM&feature=player_embedded

Yes it was from the rob Zombie song! And also because a living dead girl or person in general is a common theme for "Bad Movies" So yeah off course I was gonna choose that name xD

Self control is the cheapest off all is true with most things, like weight or other health concerns, But Quite honestly these are different times, people no longer wait till marriage and only have sex in order to have children,

I fail to see what the govt in america honestly exspects? It's not like everyone on birth control is Premiscous or whatever anyways, what if you live with your partner? What really made me angery about this dude saying "Make sex tapes to pay for birth control or just don't" is you have to wait till marriage (even if thats not what you believe in) or the polar opposite ! That is just the most disrespectfull thing against women I have heard. And the logic is so dumb I can not even begin to rant. And very un-realistic! Honestly what does the Govt exsepct?? Seriously? I understand the money side off it. yes it is exspensive But It seriously is not just people who sleep around who take it.

But I do admit I am surprised it costs $3000 a year, Considering Any kind off healthcare over here is Rarely that exspensive. (Medicare is a big part off that) I know some medication over there costs $700 a bottle. Here I can buy a months worth off all my regular stuff, and it may be $250 or less, Birth control will make that cost more, and I just found that odd. Not having an unwanted child is a health concern aswell. And I live with my boyfriend, We are not in a good place money wise. I think we are being smart about it, even if it does mean taking money out our small budget to avoid being over our heads with a human life that does not just go away.

Seriously thought this guy saying "make sex tapes to pay for it or just don't have sex!" Is to me very stupid (Yes I get the money part, his logic and way off thinking on the matter is just ... way below average.) Seriously? I honestly think he has something metally wrong with him, I am not trying to insult him. Maybe he should get help and then see how hard it is to pay for some medications. And best off all GET HELP!!! =/

It might be condusive to this debate if someone actually produced the transcript of what was said . . . I didn't hear the show the day of the said monologue, so I'm not sure if the "sex tapes" remark is being represented accurately or not.

it was a recipe for genocide and slavery BECAUSE it was utopian and unrealistic. the road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc

 




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_Incorrect#Controversy_and_cancellation   hard to tell.


at any rate he lost advertisers and did suffer for it.

OK, I’ve actually  met and done some work with ‘Zombie’ and his wife years ago, true  ‘horror  movie’ fans.  :teddyr:

I agree people  are more impulsive and barriers  have dropped  in our secular Western society, but, if  one wants  truly to be independent, you can’t have  Govt. be your  Mommy and Daddy and then demand they  stay out of your life?

I find it highly disrespectful to men and women that  this woman has set herself up as  some authority  with her media and political allies that  ‘respect’ for women should be  paid for from someone  else rather than the adults  engaged in any  behavior. Seriously, where are  the calls  for Men to take  birth control seriously and why  aren’t these  direct participants  required  by law to  pay and take  responsibility, now, there’s your disrespect  to women.

This  goes way beyond  Limbo, Maher and any other dude  on radio, TV, or Congress. I’m a  single  adult and  certainly  sexually  active, never  once have  I asked anyone  for money for condoms or anything else  related  to my sexual  behavior due to the fact  that it’s  none of their  freak’n business and I want it to stay  that way.

And I do it well. Marginalization is how I get through my day, sir.

Millions upon millions of people need somebody whom they can quote, and provide their opinions for them. Bill Maher provides that service for many on the left, Rush has done it for many on the right for over 20 years. So if I’m marginalizing several million people, I take that as a compliment. f**k ‘em. They’ve got Fox and Hannity and plenty of other sources to do their thinking for them.

I happen to find Bill Maher’s show amusing to some degree, and find I agree with certain portions of his viewpoints, just as I agreed with certain aspects of Rush’s positions back when I listened to him in 1990, especially when he was being earnest and not trying to be a comedian, because he’s not very good at it. I do this moronic thing called THINKING, and because I don’t require the existence of Rush or Bill to provide my quips and thoughts for the day, I don’t mourn the loss of either. I live my life, when I'm not marginalizing large sections of society that is.

 :teddyr:

True.  But highly educated and professional people are rarely lazy and non-thinking sheep, which was the claim about Limbaugh's audience.

This is the part I find offensive.

NO ONE does my thinking FOR me...no one provides my opinions for me.  And that is true for a healthy dose of Limbaugh's audience as well.  I don't know about Maher's callers...I've never listened to his show, but I'll bet money the same applies there.

It's a chicken and egg kind of question.  I have my thoughts and opinions about things BEFORE I hear Limbaugh utter a word.  As, I am sure, you do before you tune into Maher.  From the comments his callers make, this is certainly true of Limbaugh's listeners/callers.

It's entirely playing into the stereotype of what prompted Indy to start this thread your saying this.  You assume because someone listens to Rush, Hannity or Fox News that they are being told what to think and buying it hook, line and sinker.  It's the "they are too stupid to think for themselves" line, and

It is pure crap.

I think a whole bunch of left-media-loving people don't want to admit that INTELLIGENT, reasoning people disagree with them.  It's easy to put down the opposing viewpoint rather than, eh hem, THINK about it and debate it on fair, respectful terms.

This is the ENTIRE point of this thread.  The left media gets to say whatever they want, to denigrate and insult the opposite view (oddly enough while also falsely claiming the mantle of open mindedness and tolerance) and indeed the very intelligence of other people JUST because they disagree on policy or the nature of government.

In the leftist media, anyone on the right is a bad guy, too stupid to be allowed to live.  And before we get shouts of "hyperbole," I took a gander of about a half dozen web sites last night where that exact kind of claim was made.

No, not that Limbaugh himself should not be allowed to live, but that his listeners not be allowed to live.

So, you tell me, where is the hate coming from?  I've NEVER heard a conservative in person or on the air say someone with a liberal viewpoint should be killed, on that the basis of their liberal ideology or any other reason.

And, for the record, "we" are likewise not the ones  sitting around claiming that Maher's or similar audiences are too stupid or lazy to think for themselves.  I've known extremely intelligent leftists/liberals/people that disagree with me.

Yes, AHD.  What passes for objectivity and the claim of "unbias" in contemporary America does in fact make me interject "WOW."   :thumbup:

You're taking it kinda personal, ulthar. People tend to get offended when a comment identifies them in some way. I have to assume, based on your comments, that Rush represents you to some degree. I've known quite a few ditto-heads in my day, and just the euphemism "ditto-head" alone represents the profile quite well. Most of them practically lived their lives by the Word of Rush. Now, if that profile does not apply to you, then you really shouldn't be getting offended.

I'm not really taking it any more personally any other time someone basically calls me stupid with no basis for that claim.  I may well in fact BE stupid, but let me PROVE it first!

You may not know what the phrase "Ditto Head" means.

It has nothing to do with liking Rush or agreeing with him.

In the first few years of his show, his callers would expend precious (to him, apparently) air time by saying the same 'greeting" which was "love the show, listen every day."  Even staunch liberals who called in to to disagree with him would say this.  So, he asked people to just say "ditto" to save time.  I've heard other radio hosts, even regular morning jocks do similar things to save air time.

With Rush, it stuck as a "label" for his listeners.

On to this:

"People tend to get offended when a comment identifies them in some way. I have to assume, based on your comments, that Rush represents you to some degree."

I've already explained this several times.

Rush DOES represent his listeners to some degree.  The degree is exactly this: he says ON THE NATIONAL MEDIA STAGE what they would say if THEY had the microphone and (here's the important part)

They were not hearing elsewhere.

Specifically, the things he says that apply to this are (a) that government is too big, (b) taxes are already too high and (c) government is too intrusive in daily lives of people who just want to be left alone to earn their living.

This message is absolutely NOT said on the other major media outlets, not now and emphatically not in the late 80's when Rush became nationally syndicated.

So, to this point, we agree.  Rush represents, is a figurehead if you will,  a fiscally conservative viewpoint in the national media.  I don't need Rush to speak for me when I'm talking to you or to a person here.  I do LIKE having Rush speak "for me" in the national media.

Where the "insult" comes in is that you assume that I (I as a metaphor here for the Rush listener...I'm not a regular Rush listener, but when I do listen, I find I agree with a good bit of what he and his callers say on these policy matters) am a blank slate until I tune in and get told what to think.

That's exactly backwards, and the point you seem to be missing.  People initially liked Rush because they hold a world view that is NOT being given ANY credit whatsoever on the national media stage by anyone else.  In fact, they are told daily in other media that their world view is stupid or at least "wrong."

You say you would not miss either Rush or Maher if they disappeared.  Fine.  There are two reasons your position on this is different than those of the Rush listener:

(1) If Maher disappeared it would not matter to the voice on the national stage; Chris Matthews, Katie Couric, Barbara Walters, Peter Jennings (RIP), Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Larry King, Jack Krugman and any number of other nationally known "voices" are heard daily that say the same thing.

You'd be lost nothing if Maher disappeared.  Your message (rhetorical you, you = Maher "fan") is still out there.

(2) Not true for the Rush fan of old.  In the early days, if Rush was indeed silenced (as many called for then and many still do), that's it for that "side" of the discussion.

Now, what happens in this kind of situation is that when people are inundated with opposing views all the time, they feel isolated.  Another common theme among Conservative Talk listeners is "I thought I was alone in thinking this."

What is the "this" they are usually talking about?

My three points given above:  government is too big, taxes are too high, and the government, as a bureaucratic entity, is too intrusive.

It's not that people want to be told what to think...it's not that they cannot think or are too lazy to figure it out for themselves.  It's that they HAVE figured it out for themselves but are constantly put down and insulted for thinking that.  They are told that what they have figured out is invalid (or worse).

The real weakness is that these same people just give too much power to the media.  On the one hand, I don't give a rats behind if I AM the only person in the country that thinks the government is too big.  But for many, those that do cling to Rush, Hannity and others, they want that safety in numbers and to know that it's not 1984 and they are being lined up for re-education camp.

The margins in the elections show, no matter who wins, that the country rather evenly divided (has it always been so?  are true landslides rare?)  But to listen/read to the national media, the half that "I belong to" does not exist, beyond being too stupid for my own good.

Geez, they seem to be asking, why can't that guy just get his mind right and vote "Left."

(I'm purposefully avoiding Rep. and Dem. here, because I don't think for a minute the present crop of Republicans in general represent my fiscal conservativeness....)

Oh, good grief, ulthar.

You ARE taking it personal, because at no point did I call you “stupid.” I will never understand the mentality of getting offended because somebody made fun of a celebrity that someone likes. You’re being entirely too sensitive.

I used to listen to Rush in the early 90’s. I know exactly what “ditto-head” means. I understand that it is intended to save time, but while there may be some exceptions, it essentially is an expression used by his adoring fans and most definitely reflects his “core” audience. And by the way, when I listened to his show before I grew tired of it, I considered myself a bit of a fan who also thought for himself, and I made fun of the ditto-head aspect of his show back then. “Ditto-head” decidedly defines his core audience, even if there is a portion of his fans that are less defined by it than others. I don’t see how you can possibly dispute that.

As for Bill Maher, he is a lefty, but is also a comedian, and a pretty good one at times. I watch his show on occasion because it entertains me. The big difference between Maher and Limbaugh, other than political differences, is that Maher makes some jokes that are universally funny, while Limbaugh’s so-called parodies are usually funny only to ditto-heads. I’ve heard him make claims before that others steal bits from him. If that were true, and I don’t doubt that it may sometimes be, the stolen bits are usually funnier done by somebody else because he simply is not a gifted comic. When I listened to him, I used to hate it when he tried to parody. I always preferred it when he stuck to serious commentary, something he IS gifted at.

It amuses me the claim that the “liberal media” (complete with devil horns and cloven hooves) can get away with anything while right-leaning commentators are so victimized. The fact that Rush has done what he has done for as long as he has done it, and so successfully, and ushered in a market for many others that followed him, pretty much negates that claim.

I’m sorry, but I just find the gripe from the right about not being fairly represented both annoying and amusing. I’m sorry if it offends you, but I don’t really distinguish it from the whining of any “victimized” group.

Right back atcha, Br'er Debater.


You said (several times in several posts) that people who listen to Rush (or conservative media in general) cannot think for themselves and are mentally lazy....synonyms for stupidity.


Not what I'm doing at all...you can make fun of Rush all you want....more power to you.

But that's not what you did.  You said some mighty ugly comments about his listeners, and those of Hannity and viewers of Fox News.  I believe "fu%$ 'em" was one such comment.

Nowhere in any of my posts have I defended Rush himself; the resentment I am feeling based on your comments is the insinuation that if I choose to listen to conservative "Entertainment" (I won't call it news), I'm mentally lazy and cannot, or do not, think for myself.  And that a friend would essentially say "f you" to me because of the radio/tv programming have chosen to listen to in the past.

You explicitly stated that Rush listeners tune in to get their opinions told to them.

THAT is the kind of "anti-Conservative" bias that was the basis of this thread.



Name me five instances in the last 20 years where a representative in the federal government has claimed that Bill Maher, CNN, MSNBC, The View (??, hell, I don't even know what they talk about .... just throwing it out there) or other "mainstream media" source should be removed from the air.

Ooops, there I go again, asking for facts.


Walk a day in my shoes....see it from my perspective.  That's all I'd ask.

You don't see the bias, and indeed the vitriol that exists, because it's not aimed at YOU.

It's easy to get all up in arms over something Rush says, like calling a woman a slut, but at the same time ignoring the 100 other things said every day because they are acceptable to you...you in part agree with what's said.

Indy asked the question initially why Bill Maher can get away with calling Palin a c*&t, but Rush gets slammed for calling some woman a slut.  That question still stands unanswered.

What we've had is a big discussion about what's right or wrong with Rush, his show or his listeners.

And this is exactly Indy's and my point.  The bias is real and is evidenced by the fact that it's not even acknowledged by half the population.

So, is it or is it not acceptable to you that Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a "c&^t"?  If so, follow-up.  Is it okay that Rush called a woman a slut?  If not, follow-up.  What's the difference; why is one acceptable and the other not?

Anyone can answer this.

ulthar,

So, I'm supposed to stop and walk in the shoes of anybody with whom I disagree with? That is an impossibility. Look, I'm going to make an observation, and that observation is sometimes going to ruffle some feathers. If you can't see that I am talking about a certain set of people, that you may not necessarily fit in with on all aspect, then I don't know what to tell you. You underestimate me. I CAN see the bias. Bias is all over the place, my friend. Get over it. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I see plenty of people calling him a kook and that his supporters are kooks and that he is dangerous to America. I don't get offended. I have better things to do with my time that to get offended by it. So do you.

     I think what offended him was the ad hoc assumption that people of a certain political stripe are incapable of thinking for themselves. I, too, hear this often from liberals, and I also find it offensive.

     I don't listen to Rush; these days, I generally don't listen to Michael, Laura, Bill, Dennis, or any one of them. I count myself a conservative, of the moral variety, and my opinions are shaped by my faith....if they coincide with those of a pundit, BFHD. They are my opinions, and are not osmosed into my skull via the ray-did-eo.

It would be kind of awesome if they fired ALL the pundits.

Silence everybody?  That's what the Congress tried to do with the imposition of the "gag rule" on slavery.  It only made the issue more bitter and divisive, because Congress COULDN'T talk about it.


Personally, I am enjoying this whole back and forth immensely and am glad I started this thread - although I hope no one is taking it too personally.  It's a great discussion - by which, I mean, when I finish reading all the new posts, I feel a bit smarter than I was when I started, instead of more stupid.

The fact that theres SO many political shows and websites and so forth indicates I think that the government has gotten too big, not in the conservative vs liberal sense but in the sense of it's role in society. At least with, say, monarchy you wouldn't have these blowhards who are all in the pocket of the corporations anyway. I know that's a cynical thing to say.

One of the worst things that happened in this country was when Stern left regular radio. that was the only show that made me laugh. All there is now are call in shows and pundit shows going over the same arguments again and again and it's depressing.

I'm not trying to stifle or look down upon political discourse though.

I think ulthar and I agree on maybe more than we disagree on. I don't think ulthar gets me, however. He gets so wound up. 


And ulthar, can't you see that I'm yanking your chain a little? Yes, I do pretty much believe what I'm saying, but I'm also going with the whole "marginalization" angle and having a bit of fun with it. If you took it that I actually think you are stupid then you simply don't get my sense of humor at all.

I've made this offer before, but let me repeat it for those who weren't there:
Proclaim me emperor of the entire planet, and I will solve ALL your problems.  Immediately!!!!
You have my word on it! :teddyr:

Hey, I  thought I  was the emperor? :teddyr:  It's always  amusing how threads on politics  deterioate on every  message board I have ever  been on since I first  came online a  little after  9/11. First, you have at least  two people  battling it out with long posts, links 'proving' their point. Second, you have the spell  and  grammar  checker who  seeks out every error  to make someone they  disagree with, but,  don't really want to engage, look  ignorant. Third, you have the 'moderate'  peacemaker, who really just wants to my liked and tries  to find a  middle  road. I have been One and Three, spell checking and grammar is not my long suit, I was  a math and science  major.  :cheers:  Still, These  threads are always  interesting in that they usually end up with those  using the same tactics they say they abhor. It's all very human and the pundits, politicans and others we say we hate are just tapping into it.

I don't know, Indy. The current state of affairs is thus: I'm glad that the communication revolution that is the internet has democratized the porn industry. Of course, the downside of that is there is an entire generation who will never experience the joy of watching b-movies in the hope that there will be gratuitous nudity on display. (It's a lost art; let's not even discuss the demise of drive-ins.)

More importantly, funny pet videos are no longer in the thrall of the imperialistic "America's Funniest Home Videos."

But I have noticed that the price of beer is higher than it's ever been (not withstanding that unfortunate period in the 1920s). These are the issues that drive me as a human being, and I vote.

Basically, what I'm asking is whether your reign will include more videos like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXcKrq2hEnE

If you don't support beer, naked ladies, and dogs playing the piano, I am against you. (I might still vote for you if all other choices turn out to be worse.)

All of those, plus hamsters chewing on power cords!!!!! :cheers:

not to bash the founding fathers or anything but in retrospect: mild taxation with a king who lives on the other side of the ocean? not a terrible deal.

The problem was not "mild taxation."

The problem was quartering of troops and the issuance of general warrants.  The colonists were on a path to enslavement by Parliament, and they saw it.  The government induced monopoly for the East India Company, to line the pockets of said Parliament politicians, was a big part of it, too.

The taxation taken alone was a small part of it.

Look at the Bill of Rights....not a single word about taxes.  Yet there's a TON of verbiage present regarding arrest, warrants, and the idea of the government taking what belongs to citizens.

Looked at in that light, yep, it was a terrible deal.

People are capible off making their own decessions most off the time, There are idiots who can not be bothered using their head to make adults choices, about their actions and the actions consiqences. Before or/ and after. I think that is honestly what anoyed me about Rush Limbaugh, cause he did and had no clue what he was talking about.

Lesson off the day is... Freedom off speech is awesome, but when your stupid it's much better to be quiet. :)

BTW I must comment on how you and your wife worked with Rob Zombie!

He seems like one cool dude, He seems Very smart and laid back, like you can hung out with him like a normal dude, but he has interesting things to say! :D

But you tell me if he was cool or not??? I have met celebrities but never the ones I like, and normally I am unaware they are famous till after I tell people who I met. Those ones however are cool :)

Well, Alot of people  annoy me and say things I think are innacurate, however, I Freedom Of Speech is too important to put virtually any curbs  on it, based on my views.

I met 'Zombie' and  his wife, not mine, I'm not married.  :smile:  I met them backstage at  an OZZFEST in NJ, 'Sheri', his wife has been in a  few movies he made including the brutal 'The Devil Rejects.'  Rob  and his lady were real nice and not nasty at all, I can say the same for 'Marilyn Manson' and Ozzy Ozborne, down to earth people, regardless of the image. It was a plus that Rob was a  huge Famous Monsters  fan and he was  awe of me that  I had hung out with Forrest J Ackerman, editor of the  classic monster  magazine of the 60's through the early 80's. He has  used images and thoughts  from growing  up on classic Universal and other  movies.

Going through this whole thread, I have to say that I do not buy the idea that the media is biased in one way or another. I just don't.

Are specific media outlets biased? Yes. Of course they are, that's not even a question. However, the broad spectrum of political thought is now more supported than it has ever been. It's all out there, more than it has ever been.

So there are people who disagree with you getting airtime. Welcome to the world. But if you are imagining a conspiracy of bias, you're just cherry-picking arguments. Everybody is arguing all the time (as they should).

Conservatives say the media has a liberal bias, liberals say the news has a conservative bias. They're both right.

My opinion? The further you get from seeing things through a liberal/conservative bias, the better off you'll be. Join the real world, the actual real world. Jettison political grandstanding.

You don't have to buy it, many times it’s ‘free’ and govt. funded.  I think one has to differentiate from conservative and liberal and right and left-wing, although, liberals in today’s world seem far more accepting of their far-left folks than the right is of their extremists.  If one is on the Left, they need not cherry-pick, with exceptions of FOX News and five guys on radio; the media is biased, globally, on the Left. The reason being, in my view, cause the Left are better at appealing  to the basic human emotions of having the state being  ones' 'Mommy or Daddy.'  The problem also, in my estimation, as someone who has been  an anarchist, socialist and now a republican, and I'm not too sure I'll be staying even with the latter, is that academia is where journalistic ethics and procedure is learned and there is no question that it is decidedly Left-wing. There doesn't need to be a 'conspiracy.'     This will not change, unless and until, so-called 'conservatives' employ the same militant tactics the Left used for decades and even transcended thee collapse of the Soviet Union.