Obama Rebukes Limbaugh, Thanks woman called a "slut" and "prostitute"

The term Rebuke makes me remember Jesus in the bible. He was always rebuking people. Funny how it only became trendy to use the phrase in political reporting when the USA elected our own messiah.

reply to post by mastahunta


Hey friend...if you re-read the last part of my post, maybe you will see what my comment meant. Oh...and read my PS. I think Rush messed up big time. But I am also against the level of control this (and most) governments want over the citizens.

reply to post by NorEaster


You corrected me for not being on topic...but the title of this thread is directly related to what I wrote. This is an issue of morality and not entitlement.

Basic respect for women? No. I am a woman. I do not use contraception. I am catholic. Basic respect for women is not having sex with her if you do not respect her Enough to have a child with her. That is BASIC RESPECT!

I am aware that contraceptives can be used for hormone imbalances, but a catholic would not use them for that. Catholics are educated in how contraceptives work and they are arbortifacients, therefore we are opposed to them being used for any purpose.

Only medicines that are needed to promote health should be mandated. This exclude pregnancy prevention, male pattern baldness and eylash thickening. Not one of thse is medically necessary.

The pill can be an abortifacient when it causes the lining of the uterus to malform. This causes a fertilized egg to not implant properly and is miscarried. This is the one of the moral objections. Paying for these pills-kills human life.

To understand abortifacients read:

www.pfli.org...

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
My Daughter is on "the pill" due to a hormone issue. She becomes very depressed and the doctor prescribed "the pill" to solve the problem. It has worked wonderfully. But this was for a medical issue...not simply to keep from getting pregnant while having sex.


Are we really that blind???

Well it will be nice when your political friends have legislated out all birth control because
of the potential of the product being used as birth control. You fail to understand the tip
of the spear in this argument, which is not you and your position, rather a more extreme
religious based motive that is staunchly anti birth control which your daughter hormones
are. You have too much faith in zealotry - Maybe reality will serve you up a hot steaming
lesson on the dangers of it.

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Hey friend...if you re-read the last part of my post, maybe you will see what my comment meant. Oh...and read my PS. I think Rush messed up big time. But I am also against the level of control this (and most) governments want over the citizens.

I did, read my next response.

reply to post by mastahunta


That is my point! I pay my health carrier myself and choose a company that provides the best coverage for my situation...and in this case...including my Daughter's situation. I don't want, and don't need a third party involved that can influence or force the company THEY choose to do anything. If I choose who I pay based upon what they provide...without anyone else involved in the process...I HAVE CONTROL. Not someone else with their own agenda.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
Rush Limbaugh's point was...if you can't afford birth control-don't have sex. How is that unreasonable?

The majority of this society doesn't agree with him.

Majority opinion = truth is a fallacy of logic. It's called "Argumentum ad Populum." A majority of society 100 years ago didn't think women and black people were capable of making an informed decision at the ballot box. Was the majority correct 100 years ago?

edit on 3-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

You poor conflicted person.

How do you reconcile your vitriol with your Christian faith?

Obviously the universal progression of rights and benefits for all within this society is inherent, and the forced limitations against minority groups by any larger group is anathema to what the United States is all about. And yes, it does often require that society as a whole shake off their natural resistance to ethnocentrism and other forms of group-centric oppression. That said, what you're suggesting is exactly the opposite of what has been established as the progressive trajectory of this very unique society, and by doing so, you've negated the validity of your own argument.

The United States is not about the primacy of the individual against the larger good of the society. It is about the primacy of a society of contributing individuals and the largest common good that can be achieved for that society, while ensuring the rights of each individual as defined by the society as a whole. It has always been this way, and even with all the money spent to reverse that ongoing trajectory, it's remained this way since the nation was launched.

It wasn't based on Christian principles (being based on Greek and Iroquois Nation principles and basic structure) but it doesn't clash with them either - which is helpful. Specifically restricting the access to equal medical access (cost is a primary barrier in this society to medical access, and that's been well established) for a subset group within this society, for any reason that isn't a violation of civil or criminal law, is completely abhorrent to the stated principles and intent of the original framers of this nation. When slavery was outlawed, slaves were immediately freed. When women were legally granted the vote, preventing them from exercising that right became illegal. In this society, women have the right to access all legal healthcare options, and trying to make that access illegal is what the GOP-led Congress just tried to accomplish, but they failed. That means that it IS legal for them to access that very specific healthcare, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Like I said, if you don't like this society, then you are free to leave. There are other versions of modern society that exist on this planet, and this one isn't your only option. I only offer this suggestion to you because it's clear that you're not ever going to be happy with this one, and it's not ever - and I mean never - going to change to suit you.

reply to post by Missing Blue Sky

Basic respect for women? No. I am a woman. I do not use contraception. I am catholic. Basic respect for women is not having sex with her if you do not respect her Enough to have a child with her. That is BASIC RESPECT!

AMEN!!!! Apparently, people don't care about being respectful to women if they cannot insert their penis in them!!!

Star for your post.

reply to post by NorEaster




Wow, that's a ton of fluff.

So paraphrase for me, are you still under the impression that majority opinion determines truth?

How do you reconcile your vitriol with your Christian faith?

What "vitriol"?? lol

reply to post by Missing Blue Sky


Oh really I am Catholic and I use them for treatment of my condition. Just like somewhere between 85-98% of Catholic women use them for varying reasons.

reply to post by David9176


Limbaugh was over the top and absolutely disgusting in his comments. He also displayed great ignorance; Ms. Fluke was not testifying about how the her employer or the government should fund her sexual activities, but about the medicinal uses of birth-control aside from preventing pregnancy. If he loses a few sponsors, that is well within their rights.

But (and this in no way justifies Limbaugh's comments or is an equivocation) Obama exposes himself as a hypocrite on this one (as does the media at large). Obama will call and apologize to her for Limbaugh's comments (using her to score political points) but his SuperPAC takes a million dollars from a man who has used gender-specific insults to attack women he doesn't like, as well as make rape-jokes about them. If Obama really cared about women's issues, he would order his SuperPAC to give Bill Maher's money back.

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
reply to post by NorEaster

 

You corrected me for not being on topic...but the title of this thread is directly related to what I wrote. This is an issue of morality and not entitlement.

Basic respect for women? No. I am a woman. I do not use contraception. I am catholic. Basic respect for women is not having sex with her if you do not respect her Enough to have a child with her. That is BASIC RESPECT!

I am aware that contraceptives can be used for hormone imbalances, but a catholic would not use them for that. Catholics are educated in how contraceptives work and they are arbortifacients, therefore we are opposed to them being used for any purpose.

Only medicines that are needed to promote health should be mandated. This exclude pregnancy prevention, male pattern baldness and eylash thickening. Not one of thse is medically necessary.

The pill can be an abortifacient when it causes the lining of the uterus to malform. This causes a fertilized egg to not implant properly and is miscarried. This is the one of the moral objections. Paying for these pills-kills human life.

To understand abortifacients read:

www.pfli.org...

edit on 3/3/2012 by Missing Blue Sky because: (no reason given)

99% of practicing Catholic women use or have used birth control measures. Pain medication can be used to murder people or to keep people from going into pain-related shock (which is generally fatal). This is about access to legal medicine. This is a secular society. Get over it or leave to find a society that is more to your liking. Your morality belongs only to you. It's not a basis for society-wide protocols, and it never will be.

See. It really is simple, as issues go.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Oh really I am Catholic and I use them for treatment of my condition. Just like somewhere between 85-98% of Catholic women use them for varying reasons.

Ms. Keli, this is not an attack on you but that statistic is wrong. There were problems with how the study methodology. The study only included Catholic women who frequently use birth-control. They excluded women who did not practice birth-control methods.

No one is denied birth control in America the average cost of a condom is .20 cents. Wal-Mart
Has a plan that cost $200 for the year for pills. If she can afford to go to collage then she could certainly afford that. The problem is that she is asking for 3,000.00 a year, which would be more than 5 collages would need. And what about her partners seeing how they reaping the benefits of her sexual appetite they should pay. Where does it stop I cant afford a new car U should but me one. People need to stop looking for handouts especially now we cant keep spending more than we have on dumb things like this taxes are almost 50% now.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Wow, that's a ton of fluff.

So paraphrase for me, are you still under the impression that majority opinion determines truth?

The law is the law, and these medicines are legal. Restricting women's comparatively equal access to them has been voted down in the Congress this week, and so here you are. We are a secular society. It's as simple as that. If you want to discuss truth, then check me out in the Metaphysics forum. I specialize in truth in that forum. Just don't hate me for what you learn if you do decide to take me on in that arena.

How do you reconcile your vitriol with your Christian faith?

What "vitriol"?? lol

edit on 3-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Jesus knows exactly what I'm referring to, and so do you. He doesn't forgive that sort of public display.

"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin." Luke 17:2

Public compassion is a mandate for the Christian, and regardless of what he or she genuinely feels in their heart.

Originally posted by Horsefly
No one is denied birth control in America the average cost of a condom is .20 cents. Wal-Mart
Has a plan that cost $200 for the year for pills. If she can afford to go to collage then she could certainly afford that. The problem is that she is asking for 3,000.00 a year, which would be more than 5 collages would need. And what about her partners seeing how they reaping the benefits of her sexual appetite they should pay. Where does it stop I cant afford a new car U should but me one. People need to stop looking for handouts especially now we cant keep spending more than we have on dumb things like this taxes are almost 50% now.

Wow! Where the hell did you show up from?

$3,000.00 per year? What the heck is this supposed to be for? This is your 1st ever post here. You might want to make sure you know what you're talking about before hitting "reply".

Damn. $3,000.00 per year for birth control pills? That's remarkable. Then again, if it's a medication that's being used to treat a serious condition, then what's that got to do with having sex? Nothing at all. Either way, you need to learn what this issue is about or you're just going to look stupid.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Oh really I am Catholic and I use them for treatment of my condition. Just like somewhere between 85-98% of Catholic women use them for varying reasons.

Ms. Keli, this is not an attack on you but that statistic is wrong. There were problems with how the study methodology. The study only included Catholic women who frequently use birth-control. They excluded women who did not practice birth-control methods.

If that were true, then the % would have been 100%. Please. Your statement doesn't even make sense within itself. You completely contradicted the premise of your own statement by claiming that the study excluding women who don't practice birth control. It can be something you hate and still be true, you know. Perception isn't reality and it never has been.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NorEaster

 

The law is the law, and these medicines are legal. Restricting women's comparatively equal access to them has been voted down in the Congress this week, and so here you are. We are a secular society. It's as simple as that. If you want to discuss truth, then check me out in the Metaphysics forum. I specialize in truth in that forum. Just don't hate me for what you learn if you do decide to take me on in that arena.

Yes or no? Does majority opinion determine truth?

Jesus knows exactly what I'm referring to, and so do you. He doesn't forgive that sort of public display.

What "vitriol" though? Vitriol is abusive language, or abuse bitterness towards someone else. So what vitriol have I displayed?

Public compassion is a mandate for the Christian, and regardless of what he or she genuinely feels in their heart.

Public compassion is fine, but that doesn't mean I need to pay for everything someone else wants to have. If you're hungry I will buy you food, if you are cold I will give you my jacket, if you need money for bus fare I'll oblige, but if you want me to pay for your birth-control pills I'm not going to do that. You can just not have sex if you cannot afford to prevent a pregnancy. Having sex is not a human right.

Like I previously said, being a Christian doesn't mean by default that we are to bend over a barrel and take it from anyone who wants to give it.

reply to post by RealSpoke


errrr she can have all the birth control that she wants. I buy my own rubbers so why should i have to pay her or pay for any other man or women's birth control. Why do i have to pay for it?

And to go and testify like she did is pathetic. It's like 'I have to use birthcontrol so much I cant afford it, so would you please please please make the tax payers pay for my birth control so i can have sex.'

give me more give me more...... debt, debt, debt. listen to her testimony. limbaiugh is crude but he is right.

stand up to that type of testimoney or are you to sheepeople

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Oh really I am Catholic and I use them for treatment of my condition. Just like somewhere between 85-98% of Catholic women use them for varying reasons.

Ms. Keli, this is not an attack on you but that statistic is wrong. There were problems with how the study methodology. The study only included Catholic women who frequently use birth-control. They excluded women who did not practice birth-control methods.

If that were true, then the % would have been 100%. Please. Your statement doesn't even make sense within itself. You completely contradicted the premise of your own statement by claiming that the study excluding women who don't practice birth control. It can be something you hate and still be true, you know. Perception isn't reality and it never has been.

^ This. Not to mention the reason I put an actual range in my statement is because that is generally where the studies tend to range. And generally in close proximity to Evangelical and Protestant women both groups which typically lead Catholics by a small margin.