liberal tolerance - Justice Scalia at Wesleyan University

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fluke's ploy acting as Pelosi's pawn at a contrived hearing suggesting that the government should give her free anything, or suggesting that if she can't get it free from the government , the government should either force the religious institution that she attends to give it to her for free.... or force the insurance company of the religious institution(or any institution for that matter) to give it to her for free deserves mocking....she's also argued the same for gender reassignment procedures and other things....she's an activist and the left's current Cindy Sheehan and not at all what she was portrayed to be by her enablers.....I don't think Rush should have used the language that he did and he admitted himself that he went overboard but ...please...this is pathetic and a fraud on the American public....maybe Ms. Fluke should attend a Scalia lecture and learn a little more about what she is and isn't "entitled" to as an American(23 year old....oops...30 year old law student/professional activist). another phony dem scam

I'd refer to her as a "sleeper cell"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Fluke's ploy acting as Pelosi's pawn at a contrived hearing suggesting that the government should give her free anything, or suggesting that if she can't get it free from the government , the government should either force the religious institution that she attends to give it to her for free.... or force the insurance company of the religious institution(or any institution for that matter) to give it to her for free deserves mocking....she's also argued the same for gender reassignment procedures and other things....she's an activist and the left's current Cindy Sheehan and not at all what she was portrayed to be by her enablers.....I don't think Rush should have used the language that he did and he admitted himself that he went overboard but ...please...this is pathetic and a fraud on the American public....maybe Ms. Fluke should attend a Scalia lecture and learn a little more about what she is and isn't "entitled" to as an American(23 year old....oops...30 year old law student/professional activist). another phony dem scam

I'd refer to her as a "sleeper cell"

Let's summarize...

So the Republicans hold a panel on women's health without a single female to testify. There's outrage so they hold another and invite a few token women with no real discussion.

So to get visibility on a very reasonable issue, the Dems invite a young woman to speak about how some women do need medically prescribed conception for valid health issues.

And in response, arguably the most influential Conservative out there, basically defames all women.

Republican's, terrified of Rush's wrath are frozen and offer only token responses. In what should be a leadership moment, none of them lead. George Will nails it "They want to bomb Iran, but they're afraid of Rush Limbaugh."

And all you do it tighten the tin foil.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Let's summarize...

So the Republicans hold a panel on women's health without a single female to testify.

-spence

Spence, you're entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. The Republican-sponsored hearings were not about women's health, they were about religious freedom and the first amendment. Ms Fluke has no expertise in these matters.

How weak is your position to start with, if you need to lie about the fundamental nature of the issue? you're being dishonest right off the bat.

"arguably the most influential Conservative out there, basically defames all women"

He is defaming women of financial means, who somehow insist that they can't afford their own condoms.

"And all you do it tighten the tin foil."

If defending the first amendment is tightening the tin foil, I proudly plead guilty. The Bill of Rights applies to all of us Spence, even Catholics. If enough people want to change the Constitution so that condoms supercede the freedom of religion, there are mechanisms to amend the constitution thiusly. Until then, not even Obama has the authority to decide who has religious freedom and who doesn't.

[scottw]

Spence's indignation runs on a 1-way street and is feigned for the most part...

it's not a tin foil hat Spence..it's a Liberty Cap...you should try to locate one for yourself

[Jim in CT]

Spence, if Republicans are afraid of Rush, doesn't that make Obama equally afraid of Bill Maher?

In the wake of the Arizona shooting, Obama called for more civil discourse. A noble idea. No one spits in the face of that idea more than Bill Maher, who has referred to Sarah Palin as a c*nt and a tw*t.

Yet Obama's super-PAC takes $1 million from Bill Maher?

Spence, I'm confused. Bill Maher is clearly guilty of doing exactly what Obama says none of us should be doing, yet Obama takes $1 million from Maher. If this is, as you said, a "leadership moment", shouldn't Obama return that money? It seems to me that if Obama wants to put his money where his mouth is, returning that money is morally obvious. If he keeps that money, Obama surrenders (more accurately, whores out) the moral position to say that there is no place for that kind of language

GOOD LUCK MAKING THAT WRONG, SPENCE. GOOD LUCK.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, if Republicans are afraid of Rush, doesn't that make Obama equally afraid of Bill Maher?

You're trying to stretch the argument here but it doesn't work. Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence.

In the wake of the Arizona shooting, Obama called for more civil discourse. A noble idea. No one spits in the face of that idea more than Bill Maher, who has referred to Sarah Palin as a c*nt and a tw*t.

Yet Obama's super-PAC takes $1 million from Bill Maher?

Spence, I'm confused. Bill Maher is clearly guilty of doing exactly what Obama says none of us should be doing, yet Obama takes $1 million from Maher. If this is, as you said, a "leadership moment", shouldn't Obama return that money? It seems to me that if Obama wants to put his money where his mouth is, returning that money is morally obvious. If he keeps that money, Obama surrenders (more accurately, whores out) the moral position to say that there is no place for that kind of language

GOOD LUCK MAKING THAT WRONG, SPENCE. GOOD LUCK.

Obama didn't take 1 million from Maher.

A Super PAC supporting Obama did and Obama is prohibited by law from directing what they do with the money.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't need to "make" your comments wrong...they already were.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You're trying to stretch the argument here but it doesn't work. Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence.

-spence

I thought Rush was just an entertainer....geez

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're trying to stretch the argument here but it doesn't work. Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence.


Obama didn't take 1 million from Maher.

A Super PAC supporting Obama did and Obama is prohibited by law from directing what they do with the money.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't need to "make" your comments wrong...they already were.

-spence

"Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence."

Spence, I'm going to focus on this one absurdity.

You're saying that Rush's use of the word slut, is worse than Maher's use of the word c*nt, because Rush has a wider audience?

Spence, do you listen to what comes out of your mouth? What you're saying is, freedom of speech is inversely proportional to the size of the audience? What's the logic behind that? Exactly how big does one's audience have to be, before he is obligated to be a gentleman? 1 million? 2 million?

"Obama is prohibited by law from directing what they do with the money. "

I'm no expert on campaign finance laws, but it's curious that's NOT what the white house is saying. I heard Jay Carney say that they weren't asking the superPac to give the money back, not that they were prohibited by law from telling the PAC to give the money back.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Spence's indignation runs on a 1-way street and is feigned for the most part...

it's not a tin foil hat Spence..it's a Liberty Cap...you should try to locate one for yourself

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

she's free to buy her own contraception..I think Walmart has a good deal, she's free to purchase her own insurance or apply for state assistance if she's so destitute and she's free to attend a different university with policies that she favors....dosn't appear as though the University is asking the state(government) to force her to do anything or treating her any differently than anyone else under their policies...this appears to be the difference that you don't seem to comprehend...probably that positive liberties/ negative liberties thing again

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

she's free to buy her own contraception..I think Walmart has a good deal, she's free to purchase her own insurance or apply for state assistance if she's so destitute and she's free to attend a different university with policies that she favors....dosn't appear as though the University is asking the state(government) to force her to do anything or treating her any differently than anyone else under their policies...this appears to be the difference that you don't seem to comprehend...probably that positive liberties/ negative liberties thing again

I believe Fluke was speaking about situations where affordability of contraception for some women was part of the issue.

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

Again, you're way off base.

The constitution says the feds cannot approve or disapoprove of a soecific religious view. I have posted that.

Spence, please show us where the constitution says that citizens have the right to have contraception provided to them at their place of wmployment.

"her freedoms."

Spence, who are all these women who cannot get contraception, unless it's provided by their employer? Furthermore, these women, fortunately, have the "freedom" to work anywhere they want. If they want free condoms at work, they can work at Planned Parenthood or, thanks to liberals, in any public elementary school.

You make it sound like condoms are only available at work. Do these women all live in th wilds of Alaska? Are there no pharmacies or gas stations, or clinics, where they live?