So what do you think? Double Standard or just more conservative whining? (PT)

[Frank81]

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. 

[lester1/2jr]

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.

[ulthar]

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.)

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.

[Frank81]

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.

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.

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

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.

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."

[indianasmith]

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.

[Frank81]

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.

[tracy]

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.

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.

[alandhopewell]

    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).

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

[lester1/2jr]

those thighs are supposed to remain shut until marriage

what if she is married?

[Raffine]

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

Agreed. So no more state sponsored Viagra, either.

[lester1/2jr]

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?

[indianasmith]

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.

[ulthar]

Agreed. So no more state sponsored Viagra, either.

Absolutedly-dutedly.  Right On.


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

[The Gravekeeper]

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

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