Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:vs. a middling stand up commedian on a poorly rated AM radio talk station?

Limbaugh plays daily to an audience in the tens of millions, and he a political commentator, not a comedian.

So basically what you're saying is that both sides are equal as long as we're all happy to make the facts that make them equal.

No I am saying put them all against the proverbial ratings wall.

Frazzled wrote:No I am saying put them all against the proverbial ratings wall.

Limbaugh rates, and will continue to rate. There's always an audience out there waiting to feel outraged over stuff that angry radio people claim is outrageous, even when it's stupid made up nonsense.

Same as Maher will continue to appeal to nasty, small minded people that like feel intellectually superior, and so he'll pick up enough ratings to shuffle along.

We can't, and mustn't, shut down these kinds of voices, but it then becomes important for everyone that values real debate, on both sides, to come out and tell everyone that people like Limbaugh and Maher are just noisy little nobodies who make up gak to feel good about themselves. Make sure that their nasty, stupid politics is kept on the fringe where it belongs.

We should not, as some people have unfortunately tried in this thread, defend them, even with as milquetoast an effort of targetting the girl he abused while shouting 'your side does it too!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I did particularly enjoy when the left got righteously indignant over the "Magic Negro" song.

That's actually another point I thought you guys would have hit rock bottom, and decided that there really must be something better to do than defend that hatefilled stupidity.

I'd rather they just say "left wing crazies are allowed to be crazy," it would let us know where they stand. Rather than trying to create false barriers that break down when they would negatively impact liberal crazies.

The left wing crazies will be crazy. Find me anyone nearly as crazy as Limbaugh who has anything like his influence within the party, and you'd have a point. As there is no such person, all we have is you talking bs to avoid accepting that there really is a major problem with flying rodent gak insanity in the core of the conservative movement.

Seriously, it doesn't have to be this way, and it wasn't always this way in the Republican party. There is a intellectual legacy of good and thought political argument in the party, that you're presently gaking all over by putting up not only with Limbaugh's nonsense, but also by pretending there's any merit at all in this stupid 'don't make people pay for contraception


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Gen. Lee Losing was talking about paying for optional medical procedures and medications. Go back and read the posts.

Regulating hormones to keep one from bleeding to death is not, by most reasonable definitions, optional if that is what is deemed medically necessary.

Are we really derping this hard right now?

No, he didn't. We'll go back and get his post, shall we?

"I am sorry your daughter has that problem. Again, I am not saying she has no right to medicine. So using an obviously sympathetic story to insinuate that I am uncaring is BS.
She has every right to go get it. I would encourage her to do so. I have nothing against her getting it, actually.

But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it?
Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care."

See there, where he says 'why make someone else pay for it?' That means he thinks it is up to the individual to pay for it, or for their parents to do so. Which means, as I already said, there is no effective right to the medication, because if you don't have the money you can't get the medication.


EDIT - whoever set up the word filter so that flying rodent gak turns up as flying rodent gak is an absolute genius.

Limbaugh rates, and will continue to rate. There's always an audience out there waiting to feel outraged over stuff that angry radio people claim is outrageous, even when it's stupid made up nonsense.

Same as Maher will continue to appeal to nasty, small minded people that like feel intellectually superior, and so he'll pick up enough ratings to shuffle along.

We can't, and mustn't, shut down these kinds of voices, but it then becomes important for everyone that values real debate, on both sides, to come out and tell everyone that people like Limbaugh and Maher are just noisy little nobodies who make up gak to feel good about themselves. Make sure that their nasty, stupid politics is kept on the fringe where it belongs.

We should not, as some people have unfortunately tried in this thread, defend them, even with as milquetoast an effort of targetting the girl he abused while shouting 'your side does it too!'

Oh jeez now I'm agreeing with Sebster.

Came to see conservatives defending a man branding a woman whose sex life is unknown to him a "slut" and a "prostitute" in front of millions of people, leaving satisfied yet saddened.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Gen. Lee Losing was talking about paying for optional medical procedures and medications. Go back and read the posts.

Regulating hormones to keep one from bleeding to death is not, by most reasonable definitions, optional if that is what is deemed medically necessary.

Are we really derping this hard right now?

No, he didn't. We'll go back and get his post, shall we?

"I am sorry your daughter has that problem. Again, I am not saying she has no right to medicine. So using an obviously sympathetic story to insinuate that I am uncaring is BS.
She has every right to go get it. I would encourage her to do so. I have nothing against her getting it, actually.

But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it?
Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care."

See there, where he says 'why make someone else pay for it?' That means he thinks it is up to the individual to pay for it, or for their parents to do so. Which means, as I already said, there is no effective right to the medication, because if you don't have the money you can't get the medication.


EDIT - whoever set up the word filter so that flying rodent gak turns up as flying rodent gak is an absolute genius.

Which, not that it matters, I did pay for it. I pay a bit of every paycheck to my insurance plan.
Plus i pay a negotiated price for my medications and co-pays to doctors.

Frazzled wrote:Oh jeez now I'm agreeing with Sebster.

Don't feel too bad, it happens to the best of us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alarmingrick wrote:Which, not that it matters, I did pay for it. I pay a bit of every paycheck to my insurance plan.
Plus i pay a negotiated price for my medications and co-pays to doctors.

Yeah, and sorry to use your daughter as a point for debate. I was just trying to point out that 'you have the right to something as long as you pay for it' basically means 'if you can't pay for something you have no right to it'.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Oh jeez now I'm agreeing with Sebster.

Don't feel too bad, it happens to the best of us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alarmingrick wrote:Which, not that it matters, I did pay for it. I pay a bit of every paycheck to my insurance plan.
Plus i pay a negotiated price for my medications and co-pays to doctors.

Yeah, and sorry to use your daughter as a point for debate. I was just trying to point out that 'you have the right to something as long as you pay for it' basically means 'if you can't pay for something you have no right to it'.

No problem, I opened the door for the discussion on the subject. I feel it's important to show there's a need for the"pill" other than BC.
And you are correct about "no cash, no service". I've been without insurance and it was a nightmare.

sebster wrote:*snip*

At no point did I see a quote from Gen. Lee Losing specifically wishing harm on the children of another poster. He started off talking about paying for optional vs. mandatory healthcare regarding whether or not taxes should pay for it, and later (in the post you quoted) expanded on his views. Questioning who pays for something doesn't mean that someone shouldn't receive whatever that thing is.

I wish you good luck in your search.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2012/03/rush_limbaugh_s_apology_to_sandra_fluke_was_awful_here_s_what_he_should_have_said_.html

And for a bit of balance...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-saving-conservative-line-on-obamacare.html

Monster Rain wrote:At no point did I see a quote from Gen. Lee Losing specifically wishing harm on the children of another poster.

Obviously not. No-one is saying that he did.

He started off talking about paying for optional vs. mandatory healthcare regarding whether or not taxes should pay for it, and later (in the post you quoted) expanded on his views. Questioning who pays for something doesn't mean that someone shouldn't receive whatever that thing is.

I wish you good luck in your search.

Are you really, really going to pretend he is just questioning who pays for a thing, and that's all he's doing? That there's no element of 'it should be you who pays for it'.

I'll just repeat the post again;
"I am sorry your daughter has that problem. Again, I am not saying she has no right to medicine. So using an obviously sympathetic story to insinuate that I am uncaring is BS.
She has every right to go get it. I would encourage her to do so. I have nothing against her getting it, actually.

But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it?
Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care."

Seriously, it isn't hidden in the subtext. He thinks it should be up to the individual to pay for that treatment, not greater society, and certainly not him. And that means, as I've said a few times now, that when an individual cannot pay for the treatment, he goes without.

sebster wrote:[And that means, as I've said a few times now, that when an individual cannot pay for the treatment, he goes without.

Why does one person not wanting to pay for something, or even a sub-set of people in a society feeling that way mean that there can't be a way for people to get medical care that they can't afford?

sebster wrote:[

To be perfectly honest, at this stage, I'm really not. We all know more or less the form biccat's answer will take, and we all know that it'll make about as much sense as any of the other conservative positions he's endeavoured to defend.

Really at this point I'm just watching US conservatism drift into more and more ridiculous nonsense, waiting for the moment when biccat finally says he's had enough of defending their silliness. It has to be soon. I mean he's here defending a major conservative figure calling some random girl he doesn't know a slut, and the only argument the conservative noise machine has given him to justify this is speculation that the girl could have overstated the cost of contraception. So I figure the breaking point has to be soon.

Quoted for truth.

Monster Rain wrote:At no point did I see a quote from Gen. Lee Losing specifically wishing harm on the children of another poster.

He only wished harm on them indirectly.

Like wishing that Pyongyang woudl be bombed to hell, but then following it up by saying "I wouldn't want the children of Pyongyang to be hurt".

Monster Rain wrote:

sebster wrote:[And that means, as I've said a few times now, that when an individual cannot pay for the treatment, he goes without.

Why does one person not wanting to pay for something, or even a sub-set of people in a society feeling that way mean that there can't be a way for people to get medical care that they can't afford?

Well, I'm interested in hearing how this would work.

Insurance is based on creating a risk pool where healthy and unhealthy people pay premiums to cover the increased costs of people who are unhealthy. Therefore, if youare part of an insurance plan, you are sutomatically paying for someone else.

sebster wrote:To be perfectly honest, at this stage, I'm really not. We all know more or less the form biccat's answer will take, and we all know that it'll make about as much sense as any of the other conservative positions he's endeavoured to defend.

Cool story, bro.

Long story short, you're wrong.

sebster wrote:I mean he's here defending a major conservative figure calling some random girl he doesn't know a slut, and the only argument the conservative noise machine has given him to justify this is speculation that the girl could have overstated the cost of contraception. So I figure the breaking point has to be soon.

Way to not read the thread. I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore.

What I've learned from this whole situation (and thread) is that it's OK to attack conservatives when they insert themselves into the political debate (or have a brief connection with a political figure), but it's not OK to attack liberals when they insert themselves into the political debate.

Well, not so much "learned" as "confirmed."

biccat wrote:
Way to not read the thread. I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore.

What I've learned from this whole situation (and thread) is that it's OK to attack conservatives when they insert themselves into the political debate (or have a brief connection with a political figure), but it's not OK to attack liberals when they insert themselves into the political debate.

Well, not so much "learned" as "confirmed."

Someone else didn't read the thread, and is further painting with an intentionally, and unnecessarily, broad brush.

Also, I'm not sure anyone can really claim this was a case of Rush inserting himself into the political debate, so much as being one more instance demonstrating that Rush is part of the political debate.

dogma wrote:Also, I'm not sure anyone can really claim this was a case of Rush inserting himself into the political debate, so much as being one more instance demonstrating that Rush is part of the political debate.

Hint: I'm not talking about Rush.

In my experience, nothing disproves the notion that you're being intentionally obtuse than being intentionally coy.

Polonius wrote:In my experience, nothing disproves the notion that you're being intentionally obtuse than being intentionally coy.

I'm not sure why you think I'm being coy. There are two people being discussed in this thread: Rush and a liberal activist. I also don't know why you think I'm being obtuse.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Also, I'm not sure anyone can really claim this was a case of Rush inserting himself into the political debate, so much as being one more instance demonstrating that Rush is part of the political debate.

Hint: I'm not talking about Rush.

Oh, you mean Gen. Lee Losing.

I agree sebster is off base in claiming that he tacitly seeks anyone else's death based on his comments here.

But that really only means you're objecting to hostility towards conflicting political views in the context of the larger political debate. Which is sort of weird thing to object to. I mean, you've also called OWS "dangerous", and further described people you disagree with politically as "useful idiots".

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:In my experience, nothing disproves the notion that you're being intentionally obtuse than being intentionally coy.

I'm not sure why you think I'm being coy. There are two people being discussed in this thread: Rush and a liberal activist. I also don't know why you think I'm being obtuse.

Since I still don't know who or what you're talking about, I'm either missing something or you're not being clear.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:In my experience, nothing disproves the notion that you're being intentionally obtuse than being intentionally coy.

I'm not sure why you think I'm being coy. There are two people being discussed in this thread: Rush and a liberal activist. I also don't know why you think I'm being obtuse.

I gave you too much credit.

You're equating the use of intentionally derogatory, and blatantly sexist, language with the relatively emotionally neutral criticism of a position.

Saying its bad to use an epithet doesn't entail the claim that its bad to consider a position untenable.

dogma wrote:You're equating the use of intentionally derogatory, and blatantly sexist, language with the relatively emotionally neutral criticism of a position.

No, actually I'm not.

Rush gets attacked for using harsh language (which, again, I think was improper) towards a woman who inserted herself into the political debate. There are plenety of examples where conservative women have been attacked far more harshly than the young lady here was, where there was no heated discussion about the appropriateness of the comments.

Hell, you've excused a liberal talk show host calling women "c----" "w----" and "s---" on the ground that the speaker is not as popular as Rush.

dogma wrote:But that really only means you're objecting to hostility towards conflicting political views in the context of the larger political debate. Which is sort of weird thing to object to. I mean, you've also called OWS "dangerous", and further described people you disagree with politically as "useful idiots".

Given the rapes, diseases, and general unlawfulness of OWS, I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

I only consider actual useful idiots to be "useful idiots." I disagree politically with people who aren't useful idiots. President Obama, for one.

biccat wrote:
Rush gets attacked for using harsh language (which, again, I think was improper) towards a woman who inserted herself into the political debate. There are plenety of examples where conservative women have been attacked far more harshly than the young lady here was, where there was no heated discussion about the appropriateness of the comments.

Speaking to, say, Bill Maher, there has been quite a bit of heated discussion about things he has said. Not as much as regards things Rush has said, but that makes sense considering Maher is viewed/listened to by a much lower number of people.

biccat wrote:
Hell, you've excused a liberal talk show host calling women "c----" "w----" and "s---" on the ground that the speaker is not as popular as Rush.

No, I excused the absence of equal amounts of criticism on grounds that one is less popular than the other. That is to say, more people notice what Rush says, because more people hear what he says.

You either didn't read the thread, or you're being intentionally obtuse.

biccat wrote:
Given the rapes, diseases, and general unlawfulness of OWS, I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

You made the claim well before any of that was publicized. In fact, while it will take me time to track it down, I believe you were speaking directly to the general sentiment of anti-corporatism.

biccat wrote:
I only consider actual useful idiots to be "useful idiots." I disagree politically with people who aren't useful idiots. President Obama, for one.

Really?

Your statement seems at odds with this:

biccat wrote:
Obama apparently has aspirations towards petty tyranny, and there are plenty of useful idiots in this country who either don't care or actually want him (and his proposals) to be immune from the democratic process and constitutional restrictions.

You seem to be implying that anyone who might agree with Obama, a politician, is a useful idiot. I don't know how you consider that anything other than a political disagreement.

dogma wrote:You either didn't read the thread, or you're being intentionally obtuse.

As I found out earlier, it's the latter.

dogma wrote:You seem to be implying that anyone who might agree with Obama, a politician, is a useful idiot. I don't know how you consider that anything other than a political disagreement.

Only if you ignore context, grammar, and word definitions.

For example, the word "plenty" doesn't mean "all." In fact, it doesn't even mean "most." In another example, what you infer from a comment is not necessarily what is implied.

There are also plenty of Obama supporters who do care about tyranny from the Executive, whether it's from a Republican or Democrat.

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:At no point did I see a quote from Gen. Lee Losing specifically wishing harm on the children of another poster.

He only wished harm on them indirectly.

Again, this is fantasy.

Try to not think so emotionally.

biccat wrote:
Only if you ignore context, grammar, and word definitions.

For example, the word "plenty" doesn't mean "all." In fact, it doesn't even mean "most." In another example, what you infer from a comment is not necessarily what is implied.

And "anyone" doesn't necessarily mean "everyone", just as a seeming implication is not necessarily the result of an analysis according to formal logic.

Well, unless we take likely premises as equivalent to explicit premises.

Also, there's very little difference between a seeming implication and an inference.

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:At no point did I see a quote from Gen. Lee Losing specifically wishing harm on the children of another poster.

He only wished harm on them indirectly.

Like wishing that Pyongyang woudl be bombed to hell, but then following it up by saying "I wouldn't want the children of Pyongyang to be hurt".

Alright, lets slow down here.
I'd like you to go the the shelf and open the jar that your brain is in, plug it back into your head, and then read what I am about to say.

1. Most insurances cover BC.
2.A catholic insurance or institution will not as it is against the tenets of their faith (even if it a less practiced tenet).
3. No one is forced to use the catholic system.
4. No one is prevented from going outside the catholic system.

So am I saying "screw that girl!"? No.
Am I saying "Screw people like her!"? No.
Am I wishing harm to any person? No.
Are you being unnecessarily cruel in your depiction of me? Yes.

The little girl (an innocent in this discussion) and her family is not forced to use Catholic based insurance. They can opt to have private insurance. That may cost them more, but I imagine the family would think it is worth it. They are not trapped. There are lots of health plans out there.

(I also believe that the catholic system would address the health issue in a way that may be more complicated than a simple BC pill, but they would not let the child die).

Easy E wrote:Well, I'm interested in hearing how this would work.

It probably wouldn't.

The point you should take away from this is that someone being philosophically opposed to having money taken from them to pay for goods and services for other people doesn't mean that they think on some level that another poster's children should die.