Babbling

[crapshot2]

are you just choosing to ignore the law? obama can not say anything to his superpac about anything because that would be a felony.

sorry but saying"I'm a famely man" isn't tacky no matter how much you hate obama for absolutely no reason

[Jingai]

---

crapshot2 wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

 superPAC supporting President Obama refuses to return the one million dollar donation that the loathsome

cretin Bill Maher gave it, 

---

don't be stupid, you know any candidate can not have anything to do with a superpac. Obama can not touch that money nor can he comment on it because it would be illegal.

---

  How silly to think that President Obama would have no influence over Bill Burton. Just because Mr. Burton was his campaign press secretary, I mean, really.

  Oh, and let's look at who is fund raising for Priorities USA.

Now, what was that about the President having nothing to do with the super PAC?

[crapshot2]

---

Jingai wrote:

---

crapshot2 wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

 superPAC supporting President Obama refuses to return the one million dollar donation that the loathsome

cretin Bill Maher gave it, 

---

don't be stupid, you know any candidate can not have anything to do with a superpac. Obama can not touch that money nor can he comment on it because it would be illegal.

---

  How silly to think that President Obama would have no influence over Bill Burton. Just because Mr. Burton was his campaign press secretary, I mean, really.

  Oh, and let's look at who is fund raising for Priorities USA.

Now, what was that about the President having nothing to do with the super PAC?

---

that doesn't matter. what you have is useless rhetoric from you hating obama and absolutely no proof. the law says that the candidate can have no influence over these superpacs but they can influence donations to the candidate(in whatever regular form it is).

you are blatenly taking the law out of this to try to #### on obama because you hate him because he has a D by his name.

[GinaSzanboti]

---

bones2039 wrote:

Where was this level of outrage about Newsweek's sexist cover Bachmann(which even NOW came out and called wrong)?  What about some of the harsh things said by Bill Maher(who has actually come out in support of Rush of all people) about Palin?  Not that any of that gives Limbaugh the ok to be an assclown, but the reaction does seem to be much worse over his words than the action and words of others.

---

Palin and Bachmann are public figures for whom personal attacks are part of the territory, like it or not.  Fluke is not a public figure, unless you think we should declare open season on any citizen who dares speak before Congress or its committees. 

I agree that Maher goes overboard (and I certainly don't think he gets off guiltless when it comes to misogyny), but no one sees him as any sort of figurehead for the Democrats any more than Jon Stuwart is.  If Democrats aren't criticizing them (though they do from time to time), it's not because they're afraid to do so, and you won't see them falling all over themselves to apologize for any criticisms they might have made.  Republicans generally end up begging for forgiveness if they criticize Rush for anything.  He's the Republican mouthpiece in a way Maher and Stewart are not.

Watch.  Even the mild expressions of disagreement heard from Republicans on this will be backpedalled on within the week, if not completely withdrawn via a "I misspoke, I agree entirely with the points Rush was making and he had a right to say them the way he did."  It's already starting.

[4-HBabe]

---

Jingai wrote:

  A few things to point out here: President Obama could have easily stated that he wants to have a discourse

envirnment where everyone is free to express their views and opinions without having to worry about becoming the

subject of a vicious attack. It would have been the same message, a better one in fact as it is more inclusive, and

accomplished the same goals without involving a pair of young children. Involving children in something like this

is tacky, it is completely unnecessary as pointed out, and finally, I am not the GOP.

---

Except the reason the president brought his children up in the first place is because he was asked why he called Ms. Fluke. Not why he thought what Rush said was wrong, or why we need to change the way we do things, but why he felt the need to call her.

And he gave an honest answer. That the situation made him think of his own children, who happen to be daughters, so he reacted not just as a father, but as a father of daughters. And just like any father of daughters, when they see women abused by men in the world they imagine how they would feel if that had been their daughters. And he opined for a day when they would be allowed to stand up and speak their minds without fear of being dismissed for so irrelevant a reason. That they would be recognized for what they had to say and who they were as individuals instead of glossed over and reduced to simply their sex. So, it was this feeling that prompted him to call Ms. Fluke and tell her he though her parents should be proud of her. 

How, then, could he not name them individually; with pride?

It seems odd that this is the issue you are choosing to focus on when it is so peripheral to the issue that prompted this debate. Is it really so offensive to you that a father would talk about this children with pride and imagine a better tomorrow for them? Looking forward, with a glint in his eye, to possible success and happiness they might share? That sounds like every father I've ever met when he talks about his kids.

----

On a tangential note regarding Bill Maher. I was not very familiar with his statements, as he only appears on HBO(which I do not have)  for approximately 30 episodes per year, and an approximate viewership which is generously rounded up to 2 million.  V.S. Rush's self proclaimed 15 million loyal listeners who can hear him 5 times a week on free radio all over the country. Part of the lack of outrage may have to do with the fact that he just isn't that popular. He hardly stands as a well known spokesman for the Democratic Party or Liberals in general. 

That being said, after some research, it is clear that he does have a history of making sexist, misogynistic statements that are not only in bad taste, but just not funny. I mean, with all there is to make fun of Sarah Palin about the best he can do is call her a tw*t? really? But seriously, the statements I saw were disgusting, he should be ashamed of himself, and his supporters and viewers should demand not only that he apologize, but that he change. I have no idea why a superpac that supports the president has invited him to speak. I don't particularly find him funny. He is a comedian, you understand, not a news anchor or "the leader of the moral code," as Rush claims to be.

The difference between Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher that is pertinent to this debate is that no one on the Left is standing up and defending Bill. No one is accusing his attackers of belonging to some shadowy government/liberal media conspiracy. Not a single person has come out in support of his remarks or said that they were taken out of context or that the complaint is overblown. I don't support Bill Maher, I won't defend the comments he made, and I agree that he should be held accountable for them. But that does not excuse what Rush Limbaugh said or that fact that he has a history of similar behavior or that he continues to behave in the same manner with no indication of changing at all.

>.< 

Why do all my replies to your posts turn into a wall of text?

[bones2039]

---

GinaSzanboti wrote:

---

bones2039 wrote:

Where was this level of outrage about Newsweek's sexist cover Bachmann(which even NOW came out and called wrong)?  What about some of the harsh things said by Bill Maher(who has actually come out in support of Rush of all people) about Palin?  Not that any of that gives Limbaugh the ok to be an assclown, but the reaction does seem to be much worse over his words than the action and words of others.

---

Palin and Bachmann are public figures for whom personal attacks are part of the territory, like it or not.  Fluke is not a public figure, unless you think we should declare open season on any citizen who dares speak before Congress or its committees. 

I think you are just making an excuse when you try to claim that its "not as bad" to attack public figures.  Whether she likes it or not, going before Congress opened up Fluke to become a public figure.  I don't agree with the attacks on her at all, but she was the one that choose to go before Congress and make a public statement in regards to her views on the issues.  It also seems that speaking before Congress or its committees has meant open season on others, like say General Petraeus being refered to as General Betrayus by some on the left.

I agree that Maher goes overboard (and I certainly don't think he gets off guiltless when it comes to misogyny), but no one sees him as any sort of figurehead for the Democrats any more than Jon Stuwart is.  If Democrats aren't criticizing them (though they do from time to time), it's not because they're afraid to do so, and you won't see them falling all over themselves to apologize for any criticisms they might have made.  Republicans generally end up begging for forgiveness if they criticize Rush for anything.  He's the Republican mouthpiece in a way Maher and Stewart are not.

I didn't mean for this to be an eye for an eye thing.  One poster claimed there was fake outrage over what Rush said.  I don't think the outrage is fake(There is honest outrage to be sure), just inflated because of who said it since if the outrage was JUST about what was said, the reaction should be the same no matter who said what.  You can't pretend that the fact it is Rush allows some people to be outraged over his comments when they didn't say boo when others make similar comments.

  I do think there are way too many Republicans that don't get that Rush is nothing but a shock jock entertainer and take him too seriously.

Watch.  Even the mild expressions of disagreement heard from Republicans on this will be backpedalled on within the week, if not completely withdrawn via a "I misspoke, I agree entirely with the points Rush was making and he had a right to say them the way he did."  It's already starting.

---

[Icarus27k]

---

bones2039 wrote:

---

I think you are just making an excuse when you try to claim that its "not as bad" to attack public figures.  Whether she likes it or not, going before Congress opened up Fluke to become a public figure.  I don't agree with the attacks on her at all, but she was the one that choose to go before Congress and make a public statement in regards to her views on the issues.  It also seems that speaking before Congress or its committees has meant open season on others, like say General Petraeus being refered to as General Betrayus by some on the left.

---

---

Yes, Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq from 2007 to 2008, was no more a public figure besides his testimony before Congress. 

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

stilgar wrote:

its tacky in your opinion. but i am sure you really feel its tacky because there is a D next to the presidents name

---

Are people STILL defending this POS?! And I am in hysterics that Jingai thinks Obama's comments were "tacky", but loves Limbaugh's . . . . .

[redsilversnake]

Gaius, darling, you just need to understand that calling a woman a slut for wanting an expensive medical cost covered is civil debate, while talking about how you want your children to be able to express their views without being denigraded solely for their reproductive organs is just deplorable.

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

redsilversnake wrote:

Gaius, darling, you just need to understand that calling a woman a slut for wanting an expensive medical cost covered is civil debate, while talking about how you want your children to be able to express their views without being denigraded solely for their reproductive organs is just deplorable.

---

Wait, we're on Bizzaro World now? Neat!

[redsilversnake]

No, Bizarro World would entail a matraiarchal society where men are put down because they lack mammary glands. What I posted is just what Republicans believe.

[Pinkfrog]

Am I reading this right?

Its ok to attack and make deplorable statements about people in the public eye ( politicians ) but this girl who has been on how many TV shows now and all over the media as well as commenting to congress.. Etc..

She isn't considered a member of the what ever you want to call it?

If she wasn't.. How do I put this best

Looking for attention why is she going on all of these shows to fight for her cause?

By defacto when you take up a cause what ever it may be you open your self up to scrutiny be it good or bad...

The left is making rush out to be the devil I mean hes no great guy but all of the attention the constant updates on CNN.. It just makes me laugh... This is news worthy a shock jock said something.... Shocking.. I'm shocked..

And the defense is.. Well he shouldn't have said that.. She is just a 30 year old woman looking for a "healthy social life" her words..

So in her words.. You can't have a healthy social life unless ur doin the dirty fun stuff.. and to do that she needs the government to pay for her..

This entire thing is a joke a bamboozle its to divert attention.. But hey 10+ pages later we are still talking about it..

This even got turned into a "womens rights" thing.. Its amazing how far this is being taken..

[stilgar]

where did she say the goverment should pay for contraception?

[Icarus27k]

---

Pinkfrog wrote:

So in her words.. You can't have a healthy social life unless ur doin the dirty fun stuff.. and to do that she needs the government to pay for her..

---

How does that work exactly?

[Pinkfrog]

She said she cant afford to have a "healthy social life"
Correct?
She needs help from the government to provide that isnt that what she testified to congress?
It costs her $3000.00 to pay for contraception though that number has been drasticly overblown but hell lets ignore that

back to the point you made earlier
How is this woman any different than anyone else shock jocks or comedians make fun of?

[Pinkfrog]

Your a one line poster so i'll leave this for you to make a one line comment on

Read you may learn something
http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-s
andra-fluke-48z2

[stilgar]

where did she say "i want the goverment to cover the cost of contraceptives"? go on, find that quote. i'll wait

[Pinkfrog]

read the testimony your self i posted the link for you
but that isnt what the point your trying to defend right?

How is this woman any different than anyone else who is in the public eye and shock jocks make fun of?

[crapshot2]

---

Pinkfrog wrote:

It costs her $3000.00 to pay for contraception though that number has been drasticly overblown but hell lets ignore that

---

I guess you are not medicaly informed. some females have to have the hormonole birth control pill to control there bodies or face serious medical conditions. My sister is anemic and has to have the pill because otherwise her body would not be able to process enough iron and her blood hemoglobin would be so low that she would not have the energy to get out of bed.

not to mention the damage that that kind of anemia does to the heart. untreated anemia leads to heart attacks/problems at age 30.

I think you are really taking what she said out of context so you can defend your ole pall rush.

[Gaius_Sextus]

You know what? I notice that none of you who are defending Rush's comments have told us what Maher said that's so bad. Until then, it's kinda hard to make a comparison.

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

stilgar wrote:

where did she say the goverment should pay for contraception?

---

She didn't. Oh, right . . . . .

[stilgar]

no, what i am trying to point out to you is that she wantsa her insurance she pays for to cover contraception. not the government. since this is your stance that she said x you should find the quote of her saying x and post it. but like i said, you can't

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

Pinkfrog wrote:
She said she cant afford to have a "healthy social life"
Correct?
She needs help from the government to provide that isnt that what she testified to congress?
It costs her $3000.00 to pay for contraception though that number has been drasticly overblown but hell lets ignore that

back to the point you made earlier
How is this woman any different than anyone else shock jocks or comedians make fun of?

---

Where do you people get this ####? This is about getting her HEALTH INSURANCE to pay for contraception, not the govt. Why the fuuuuuudge are you commenting about something you know fuuuuuudge all about?

[crapshot2]

it's just that he is talking about a completely different issue.

this is a health issue, 

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

stilgar wrote:

no, what i am trying to point out to you is that she wantsa her insurance she pays for to cover contraception. not the government. since this is your stance that she said x you should find the quote of her saying x and post it. but like i said, you can't

---

Only if he could post what the voices in his head told him . . . . .