liberal tolerance - Justice Scalia at Wesleyan University

[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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

He is but also has tremendous influence. Imagine a field of Republican candidates who can't even stand up to an entertainer or lightweight like Sarah Palin.

The argument over contraception is a real issue being discussed right now. What Rush says does unfortunately matter and shapes a lot of public opinion. That he chooses to do so in such an ugly manner is unfortunate.

What Maher said months or years ago while disrespectful is largely irrelevant in the present context.

-spence

[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 Jim in CT

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?

How can someone with a love of mathematics lack a basic ability to understand a simple formula?

Maher made a rude quip about someone who was making a career out of being in the spotlight mostly through destructive means. It was heard by relatively few people, and Maher isn't seen as a leader of the Left.

Limbaugh ridicules a woman who's gained a small amount of visibility through constructive means, ridicules her for hours about her sexuality, much of which was made up. He has millions of people listening and is seen as a leader of the Right.

There is no parity here.

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.

Obama can't legally tell them to return the money. The most he could do is make a public statement and hope they listen.

But even that isn't called for in this situation. It would set a precedent impossible to uphold.

Did you see how hard Mitt Romney was working to stand beside Ted Nugent the other week? Would you like me to post some of the things he's said???

-spence

[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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

wow

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"legally protected access to contraception"

Spence, again you're making up facts as you go along, that support your beliefs. Please state the law that guarantees workplace accessability to contraception.

I see you haven't responded to the pesky first amendment.

Spence, the Bill Of Rights applies to everyon, even those you disagree with. It's tough, I admit. Freedom of expression means some jerk can hang a picture of Christ covered in fecal matter. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds stopping it. Freedom of the press means that tabloid journalists can report smut. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds outlawing it. Freedom of speech means the Klan can hold a peaceful rally. I don't like it, but I dodn't want the feds stopping it. And LIKE IT OR NOT, freedom of religion means that Catholics have the right to teach that contraception is wrong.

If enough peopl eagree with you, then you go ahead and amend the constitution. Until then, neither you nor Obama has the right to selectively apply the rights protected by the first amendment.

Spence, I posted the relevent portion of the first amendment. You keep referring to legally protected access to contraception. I keep asking you to postthe law saying that employers are obligated to provide contraception, even if the employer is a religious institution. You havern't posted that law, but you keep referring to freedom of access of contraception.

Kindly post said law, or admit that you made it up please. Is that too much to ask?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

btw...this is absurd...companies, institutions and organizations set standards with regard to "standards".. behaviour ,dress codes, fraternization policies, even speech.....etc...all the time....the test is that it apply equally and that noone is treated unequally.....Ms. Fluke is not being treated unequally within the institution....she's not being singled out and denied access to contraception( if she purchases contraception I doubt anyone is going to confiscate it), she just not receiving something free through the institution(or via it's insurer) that conflicts with the institutions policies and morals and what you have pointed out is that now a questionable government mandate is something that she is pointing to and applauding....it should be part of the upcoming argument in the Supreme Court on the subject....it's the government, specifically Congress that that is restricted from implementing these restrictions...not private institutions, organizations and companies...instead of the Rasmussen book, you should grab something on our founding documents and then tell me which "Right" Ms. Fluke is being denied and which "Liberty" had been taken away

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

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

no company is denying access, they are denying paying for it. you and everyone else is free to get whatever birth control is legal. Its not a law that it has to be free.
BIG difference and the whole point of the discussion. Liberty does not equal paying for it!
You dont have to have sex. I am bald, should my company HAVE to pay for Rogain. No, its not essential to my health.


I support insurance co covering it for all, but I also respect religious organizations beliefs and their right to exercise them. Where are all the libs that were foaming at the mouth over the Islamic center in NYC? Wasnt religious freedom the whole argument for it?
Liberal tolerance......

FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves - CNN.com


You can believe and speak about whatever you want as long as liberals dont disagree with it,.......tolerance my arse

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Liberty is freedom from coercion. This includes freedom from coercive association. ALL parties in an association must be free from coercion, the employer as well as the employee in this case. You seem to feel that it is only the employee's freedom which must be protected. The Federal Government (unconstitutionally) mandated (through unelected bureaucrats of the NLRB) that employers must bargain collectively with unions under some guise of free association (free for employees, but not for employers who MUST associate with the collective group and cannot collude, associate, with other employers as a collective group). Though Ms. Fluke is not a member of a union, she is free to bargain for certain benefits, and the Church is free to agree or not--that is, in the world that the Constitution envisions. Of course, in the progressive world of our Administrative State, it is not up to either Ms. Fluke, nor up to the Church to bargain for or against something that a particular unelected administrator wishes to impose--for whatever reason that administrator wishes to conjure up. Nor does the administrator of this new regulatory agency need to feel any compunction to follow a pattern regulated by another regulatory agency (bargaining). As we keep "progressing" down this road toward complete Central planning and regulation, we can more blatantly dictate.

It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

Herein lies the dissonence in arguments about what the Constitution sought to prohibit. The Constitution PLAINLY circumscribes the limits of Federal power. But the Federal Government has PLAINLY exceeded those limits--to a point nearing omnipotence so that the Constitution can prohibit nothing. The Constitution, as written and intended, is irrelevant. It is the Federal Government now that does the granting and prohibiting. When some of us argue that a Federal mandate is unconstitutional, we are speaking in terms of the Constitution that was originally, clearly, plainly, written and intended. And the original intentions were clearly debated and recorded during and after the Constitutional convention and well after in commentaries by the founders and framers. When others argue about current legally protected "liberties" they are speaking of mandates created, for the most part, by unelected, unrepresentative Federal regulatory agencies, the existence of which does not comport with the Constitution.

[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?