Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Forum News > The Fire Hydrant


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-06-2012, 01:36 PM
Puckstop31's Avatar
Puckstop31 Puckstop31 is offline
Super-Genius
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lancaster, PA, USA
Posts: 5,846
Default

Rush Limbaugh - Loser. Jackass. Bad for the conservative movement. Getting every bit he deserves right now.

Bill Maher - Equally large jackass. I wonder why he gets a pass though? You could argue Mr. Maher's comments were worse. You know, the "C" word and all that?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...on_633200.html
__________________
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Romans 8:28


R.I.P my beloved Teddy, my "squishy monster". You will never be forgotten.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-06-2012, 01:38 PM
Gempress Gempress is offline
Walks into Mordor
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,955
Default

I personally think his apology was disgusting. He still tried to use it to further his own agenda. Basically, he said that he sank to the level of his opponents.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-06-2012, 01:56 PM
Lilavati's Avatar
Lilavati Lilavati is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 7,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31 View Post
Rush Limbaugh - Loser. Jackass. Bad for the conservative movement. Getting every bit he deserves right now.

Bill Maher - Equally large jackass. I wonder why he gets a pass though? You could argue Mr. Maher's comments were worse. You know, the "C" word and all that?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...on_633200.html
I'm not sure Maher has ever done something as spectacular as Rush's three day tirade, but you're right, he used worse words (although Rush can't use those words . . . FCC regulations) and he's just as much of a jerk.
I hope the SuperPAC refuses the donation (though, for the record, candidates do not control their SuperPACs, so Obama can't actually do anything about it directly).

There are some reasons why I think Rush's attack on Fluke was particularly obnoxious, but that said, the left is FAR from innocent of misogyny, and some of the quotes in this article are jaw-dropping, and all from lefties.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...llow-suit.html

Of course, I find most of those people profoundly obnoxious even when they aren't being sexist. (I do have to question a couple of the remarks the author calls "sexist" though . . . "batsh!t crazy?" I use that term for people of both sexes.)
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer. Nothing I say should be taken as legal advice.

The Court's extensive review of these pages serves as a useful reminder that loaded guns, sharp objects and law degrees should be kept out of the reach of children.

-- United States Magistrate Judge Paul Cleary




Laughing Shadows Bead & Design: http://www.laughingshadows.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-06-2012, 02:43 PM
Kat09Tails's Avatar
Kat09Tails Kat09Tails is offline
*Now with Snark*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Upper Left hand corner, USA
Posts: 3,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31 View Post
Bill Maher - Equally large jackass. I wonder why he gets a pass though? You could argue Mr. Maher's comments were worse. You know, the "C" word and all that?
Bill Maher is an idiot (he's a PETA puke) often times but when he gets up in the morning his job title is "comedian." That's why the rules are different for Bill rather than Rush whose accepted job is "political talk show host." There is also the difference of forum - public radio vs paid for tv channel where he has a late night TV show that is only fit for drunk yuppies. Bill has also had to make public apologies but the difference is he doesn't have "sponsors" - he has subscribers - so there is a real difference of access to the public discourse.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-06-2012, 03:11 PM
Lilavati's Avatar
Lilavati Lilavati is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 7,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kat09Tails View Post
Bill Maher is an idiot (he's a PETA puke) often times but when he gets up in the morning his job title is "comedian." That's why the rules are different for Bill rather than Rush whose accepted job is "political talk show host." There is also the difference of forum - public radio vs paid for tv channel where he has a late night TV show that is only fit for drunk yuppies. Bill has also had to make public apologies but the difference is he doesn't have "sponsors" - he has subscribers - so there is a real difference of access to the public discourse.
I'm not sure the rules are different really . . . Rush may be a political talk show host, but he also describes himself as an entertainer. The forum makes a difference in what they are allowed to say (Rush can't use the c-word), and perhaps in their ubiquity (you can tune into Rush by accident), but I'm not sure it changes their obligation to not be sexist pigs.

In my mind the reason Rush's attack was so obnoxious is:

1) Unlike, say, Sarah Palin, Ms. Fluke is not a public figure. She signed up to give testimony, and she is an activist, but she is not a well-known individual who has a reason to expect personal attacks. She's a garden variety activist, which are a dime a dozen on campuses.

2) He didn't just call her insulting sexist slurs. He specifically accused her of unsavory sexual behavior and directly attacked her sex life and sexuality. If you call Ms. Palin a c*nt that is very offensive and sexist, but its not the same as saying outright, repeatedly, that someone is outrageously promiscuous and asking them to send you sex tapes, and etc. Bill Maher was way out of line using the words he used . . . but he didn't accuse Ms. Palin, of, say, banging the entire RNC to get the Republician nomination. Basically, its the difference between using slurs and something bordering on slander.

3) Rush's prominence (he has FAR more listeners than Maher has viewers, and far more influence over them . . .unfortunately, there are a sizable number of people who take what he says seriously); and

4) Rush totally, utterly, and completely misrepresented what she said and why, and certain people on the right, including prime lunatic Pamela Geller, have continued to do so. Whether or not you agree with what Ms. Fluke said, Rush's characterization was a breathtaking demonstration of ignorance and misogyny, as well as being a personal attack. Not only that, but it has left many people who listen to such people as Rush completely misinformed about what Ms. Fluke said and why she was testifying. He managed to get wrong how birth control works, how much it costs, how birth control is used (not just for preventing babies), that Ms. Fluke said who she was up front, what Ms. Fluke was asking for and why . . . I could go on.

All that said, the fact that Rush's rant was particularly egregious does not excuse anyone else using sexist, racist, etc. slurs and personal attacks in a public forum, and everyone, both left and right, needs to start calling people out for doing it and, in particular, not defending it. There's no excuse for that kind of language or that kind of attack. Hopefully, the very fact that Rush's conduct was so spectacularly offensive will make people a lot more aware of it across the board.

Edit: Sort of a side note about prominence. I had NO IDEA who Maher was until he called Sarah Palin names. None. Of course, that's part of the reasons some of these guys do these things . . .it gets them attention.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer. Nothing I say should be taken as legal advice.

The Court's extensive review of these pages serves as a useful reminder that loaded guns, sharp objects and law degrees should be kept out of the reach of children.

-- United States Magistrate Judge Paul Cleary




Laughing Shadows Bead & Design: http://www.laughingshadows.com

Last edited by Lilavati; 03-06-2012 at 03:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-06-2012, 03:38 PM
Laurelin's Avatar
Laurelin Laurelin is offline
I'm All Ears
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 29,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilavati View Post
The best part was that she wasn't even talking about herself, but about a friend who had had have an ovary removed, because she could not afford the hormonal contraceptive pills that are also how you treat PCOS, which her friend had, and the Catholic University refused to include those pills in the health insurance policy that it requires that students buy unless they have their own. (I work with a Georgetown law graduate . . . she filled me in that detail. They are required to have health insurance, and unless you are independently wealthy, you have to get the University's coverage to get good coverage, because its the only way to be on a large group plan. UVA, where I went to law school is the same way . . . everyone is on its health insurance, because you'd be crazy not to be. But UVA covers birth control. Enthusiastically. I don't remember if UVA requires health insurance however . . . Georgetown does) . Notably, Georgetown DOES cover the pills for its female employees; just not its students.

So, Ms. Fluke was talking about a friend who was unable to get needed medical care unrelated to her sex life, because the Catholic-associated university she attends is unwilling to cover the required medication for moral reasons, even though her need was not related to those moral reasons, which resulted in her friend having to have surgery to remove one of her ovaries. This is despite the fact that the university in question requires health coverage, and that, as a practical matter that health coverage has to be bought from the university, leaving someone who needs hormonal contraceptives for health reasons unrelated to sex pretty much screwed.
Thank you! As someone with PCOS this whole thing has pretty much pissed me off.
__________________
Mia CGC - (5 year old Papillon)
Hank - (approx. 10 month old Spotty Dog)
Summer TG3 TIAD - (10 year old Papillon)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-06-2012, 04:06 PM
Lilavati's Avatar
Lilavati Lilavati is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 7,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurelin View Post
Thank you! As someone with PCOS this whole thing has pretty much pissed me off.
I actually find that to be the most annoying thing about this as well. Whether or not insurance should have to cover birth control for "recreational purposes," as Limbaugh put it, is not the only issue here. I was actually astounded to find out that many health insurance plans won't cover the pill for even for bona fide medical conditions, and moreover, that the exemption for religious institutions, and the proposed exemption for all employers based on "conscience" allows them to not cover hormonal pills, even if perscribed to treat a disease. That Georgetown University sells its students a health plan that does not cover the pill, even if it is prescribed for a disease, and that the Catholic Church is fighting to make sure they never have to provide a plan that covers it, ever, at all, even in those circumstances, was the real shocker to me. I guess I always figured that if a plan didn't cover birth control . . it didn't cover birth control, not that it didn't cover the drugs for any reason. (Edit: for reasons discussed in another thread, I think it should be covered for "recreational purposes" as well, and that the whole reason we have to have this conversation is because of our defective system. But the idea that it wouldn't be covered for disease is a whole new level of wrong).

And considering how inexpensive the pill is compared to many drugs these plans DO cover, expense is not the excuse. Instead the assumption is that the only reason any woman would ever want these things is to have sex without babies, and probably "immoral" sex at that. That really does show a profound ignorance with regard to women's health, in addition to being wildly sexist in the basic assumption. Not to mention that there are certain other medications that will not be prescribed to you unless you are on the pill (Accutane) so you're out of luck on those too.

Finding the female reproductive system mysterious and yucky is not an excuse to arbitrarily deny a woman medical coverage simply because her illness is associated with her lady bits and can be used as contraception. I hate to say it, but I'm quite certain that if it turned out that Viagra was a treatment for testicular cysts, it would be immediately covered by every health plan out there, without a peep from "religious objectors" and no one would question the intention of a man asking for it because of his cysts or call him a man-wh*re.

(Edit: I find particularly outrageous that some self-righteous employer could deny me coverage for treating a disease like PCOS based on a combination of religious beliefs I don't share and his own ignorance of female medical issues . . . that said, as I noted in another thread, the whole "employer-based health insurance" system is totally bats)
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer. Nothing I say should be taken as legal advice.

The Court's extensive review of these pages serves as a useful reminder that loaded guns, sharp objects and law degrees should be kept out of the reach of children.

-- United States Magistrate Judge Paul Cleary




Laughing Shadows Bead & Design: http://www.laughingshadows.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-06-2012, 08:18 PM
Laurelin's Avatar
Laurelin Laurelin is offline
I'm All Ears
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 29,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilavati View Post
I actually find that to be the most annoying thing about this as well. Whether or not insurance should have to cover birth control for "recreational purposes," as Limbaugh put it, is not the only issue here. I was actually astounded to find out that many health insurance plans won't cover the pill for even for bona fide medical conditions, and moreover, that the exemption for religious institutions, and the proposed exemption for all employers based on "conscience" allows them to not cover hormonal pills, even if perscribed to treat a disease. That Georgetown University sells its students a health plan that does not cover the pill, even if it is prescribed for a disease, and that the Catholic Church is fighting to make sure they never have to provide a plan that covers it, ever, at all, even in those circumstances, was the real shocker to me. I guess I always figured that if a plan didn't cover birth control . . it didn't cover birth control, not that it didn't cover the drugs for any reason. (Edit: for reasons discussed in another thread, I think it should be covered for "recreational purposes" as well, and that the whole reason we have to have this conversation is because of our defective system. But the idea that it wouldn't be covered for disease is a whole new level of wrong).

And considering how inexpensive the pill is compared to many drugs these plans DO cover, expense is not the excuse. Instead the assumption is that the only reason any woman would ever want these things is to have sex without babies, and probably "immoral" sex at that. That really does show a profound ignorance with regard to women's health, in addition to being wildly sexist in the basic assumption. Not to mention that there are certain other medications that will not be prescribed to you unless you are on the pill (Accutane) so you're out of luck on those too.

Finding the female reproductive system mysterious and yucky is not an excuse to arbitrarily deny a woman medical coverage simply because her illness is associated with her lady bits and can be used as contraception. I hate to say it, but I'm quite certain that if it turned out that Viagra was a treatment for testicular cysts, it would be immediately covered by every health plan out there, without a peep from "religious objectors" and no one would question the intention of a man asking for it because of his cysts or call him a man-wh*re.

(Edit: I find particularly outrageous that some self-righteous employer could deny me coverage for treating a disease like PCOS based on a combination of religious beliefs I don't share and his own ignorance of female medical issues . . . that said, as I noted in another thread, the whole "employer-based health insurance" system is totally bats)


You said it perfectly! And I've seen stats that place PCOS at the rate of 1 in 10 women. That's a heck of a lot of the population to ignore. And that's not even taking into account other medical conditions that are treated by BC pills.
__________________
Mia CGC - (5 year old Papillon)
Hank - (approx. 10 month old Spotty Dog)
Summer TG3 TIAD - (10 year old Papillon)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-10-2012, 01:29 PM
CaliTerp07's Avatar
CaliTerp07 CaliTerp07 is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 7,652
Default

I saw this today and thought it quite clever (and amusing)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=fZK75pXLlbY
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-10-2012, 11:05 PM
Lilavati's Avatar
Lilavati Lilavati is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 7,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliTerp07 View Post
I saw this today and thought it quite clever (and amusing)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=fZK75pXLlbY
Thanks. I will now have that tune stuck in my head for the rest of the week.

That is if my head does not explode the next time someone says "These women just want someone else to pay for their birth control."

NO.

(warning, long Lil rant harping on things she's already said follows)

They want birth control covered in the health insurance that THEY, one way or another, pay for. Georgetown charges $1300 a year for its health insurance (which will be charged to any student that doesn't show they have other insurance). Both I and Mike have money taken out of our paychecks to contribute to our insurance (as to virtually all employees) not to mention the lower wages we all enjoy because our employers pay the rest of the bill (for which they get a huge tax deduction, but which puts them in a trap as well as insurance costs spiral upward).

Our bizarre health insurance system is at heart a form of tax arbitrage . . . because I cannot deduct my health expenses from my taxes (unless they are very high and even there are are severe limitations), I purchase (both with money and with overall lower wages) health insurance from my employer, because my employer CAN deduct it from its taxes. (Which, incidentally is why we use "insurance" to pay for virtually all health care in this country, rather than just catastrophic care . . . its a combination of tax arbitrage and group negotiating leverage). And because of the perverse incentives created by this system, we also have outrageously high costs . . .

I am really, really tired of both the left and the right misrepresenting how the system works, and why it works that way. Its impossible to understand what he ACA/Obamacare does, and why, unless you understand the basics of the system its modifying. (that is not an endorsement of the ACA, just an observation about how incoherent this discussion has become--unless you understand how and why the current system works the way it does, then its hard to understand why a particular attempt is being made to modify it and what that modification does).

Oh, and furthermore, about insurance in general (although health "insurance" is a weird beast) if I have a car accident and I file a claim with my car insurance company to fix the damage to my car, I am not "asking somoene else to pay to fix my car". I am asking the insurance company to provide the service that I PAY them to perform, which is to cover my costs in the case of an accident. Of course, unlike health insurance, car insurance is a mostly free market and I am perfectly free to buy any car insurance I like, with whatever features I like, from whomever I like, at competitive prices, so long as I met the minimum requirements that my state demands.

I'm sorry to keep harping on this point, but its driving me INSANE. I want to grab random members of both political parties and shake them until they either admit that they are lying through their teeth or admit they have no clue what they are talking about. ARGH.

By the way, I'm a slut, snob, and an elitist. And a slut. I'm an S-L-U-T, S-L-U-T . . . dang it, its stuck in my head!! Help!
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer. Nothing I say should be taken as legal advice.

The Court's extensive review of these pages serves as a useful reminder that loaded guns, sharp objects and law degrees should be kept out of the reach of children.

-- United States Magistrate Judge Paul Cleary




Laughing Shadows Bead & Design: http://www.laughingshadows.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:00 PM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site