Limbaugh's message to 'feminazis'


Tonington
#181
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

The attack of a basic tenent of the Roman Catholic Faith. That's what is radical.

So is it radical for the government to interfere with any basic held belief by the religious? That's overly broad...
 
gerryh
#182
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So is it radical for the government to interfere with any basic held belief by the religious? That's overly broad...



When we are talking about a tenet that is NOT detrimental to any ones person........ yes it is.
 
Cannuck
#183
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Union and you don't have an extended medical plan payed for? What kind of a candy assed union is that? I have full extended 100% payed for by my employer..... and we are NOT a union shop.


That's your perspective. Your employer gave you that plan in lieu of wages. You are paying for your insurance even if you are not personally writing a cheque.
 
gerryh
#184
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

That's your perspective. Your employer gave you that plan in lieu of wages. You are paying for your insurance even if you are not personally writing a cheque.


again... not union..... and it looks like better health package than union and better wage package than union. That is, if you're not lieing through your teeth about your employment.
 
Cannuck
-1
#185
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

again... not union..... and it looks like better health package than union and better wage package than union. That is, if you're not lieing through your teeth about your employment.

Union or not union is irrelevant. Benefits are paid by employees as they are in lieu of wages.
 
captain morgan
#186
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Union or not union is irrelevant. Benefits are paid by employees as they are in lieu of wages.


... And the wage level appears to be far superior on all fronts including the benefits package.
 
gerryh
#187
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

... And the wage level appears to be far superior on all fronts including the benefits package.


I'd say that it's a piss poor union that can't negotiate an extended medical package for their members.
 
Cannuck
#188
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I'd say that it's a piss poor union that can't negotiate an extended medical package for their members.

Yes it would be a piss poor union
 
captain morgan
#189
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I'd say that it's a piss poor union that can't negotiate an extended medical package for their members.


Kind makes you wonder how much farther ahead they would be if they simply took the union dues and applied it elsewhere... But, then again, the union admin wouldn't serve any real purpose then, would it?
 
Bar Sinister
+1
#190
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

The attack of a basic tenent of the Roman Catholic Faith. That's what is radical. What is next for the government to legislate?

One of the basic tenets of my faith is human sacrifice. I certainly hope that the government does not interfere in that sacrament.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#191
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

One of the basic tenets of my faith is human sacrifice. I certainly hope that the government does not interfere in that sacrament.

Only if the cannibalism part isn't foodsafe.
 
Colpy
#192
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

One of the basic tenets of my faith is human sacrifice. I certainly hope that the government does not interfere in that sacrament.

Oh, don't be ridiculous.

Interference is the point.

If you are engaging in human sacrifice, I would say you are interfering in someone else's right to life, liberty, etc........

If you are ordering the Catholic Church (btw, I am NOT Catholic) to provide contraception and morning after pills , you are interfering with their practice of religion.

Nobody in the USA is being denied contraception, if they want it.

It is forcing the Church to provide it which is the problem.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

What makes it radical? The medical community has very clearly stated the health benefits and made specific recommendations, which were then incorporated into the healthcare act. It's not radical to listen to your doctor, even less so when it is the medical consensus...
Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps - Institute of MedicineAs a centerpiece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, the focus on preventive services is a profound shift from a reactive system that primarily responds to acute problems and urgent needs to one that helps foster optimal health and well-being. The ACA addresses preventive services for both men and women of all ages, and women in particular stand to benefit from additional preventive health services. The inclusion of evidence-based screenings, counseling and procedures that address women’s greater need for services over the course of a lifetime may have a profound impact for individuals and the nation as a whole.
Given the magnitude of change, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services charged the IOM with reviewing what preventive services are important to women’s health and well-being and then recommending which of these should be considered in the development of comprehensive guidelines. The IOM defined...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
You can kneel in front of your God.....who pretty well leaves you to your life choices; or you can kneel in front of your government, who will never leave you alone.......

Personally, I prefer the former.

The Church of Big Government :: SteynOnline
 
Tonington
+2
#193
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

You can kneel in front of your God.....who pretty well leaves you to your life choices; or you can kneel in front of your government, who will never leave you alone.......

False dichotomy.
 
wulfie68
+1
#194
The whole "contraception is a against my religion" thing is a crock. Its not a tenet of faith, its an uneducated social policy statement made by some old men about the health and welfare of women, less than 50 years ago, and rationalized through the use of some vague language in the Bible. This isn't like one of the 10 Commandments. I think the most telling facts about this whole issue are:

- the vast majority of women in the US do utilize or at least believe that contraceptives are allowable
- the "congressional panel" called by the Republicans was almost exclusively men from outside the medical profession, not women and/or doctors
- that whenever ED medications and insurance coverage comes up, the silence is deafening.

The other issue at play here is the tone of the discussion. Yes Limbaugh is a shock jock, but that level of discourse has no place in rational discussion of political issues. My opinion is that he deserves to be censured, as he is, by advertisers. Whats alarming to me though is Limbaugh's tone isn't far removed from Rick Santorum who is still in play as a possible presidential candidate...
 
DaSleeper
+1
#195
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I'd say that it's a piss poor union that can't negotiate an extended medical package for their members.

Gerry: He is now doing his usual back-step, he is not actualy saying that his plan is not paid by his municipality that he (supposedly) works for....but that indirectly he is paying for it because he is receiving a lesser wage package.
It's the usual dance that we all know about....when caught in a lie ...deflect deflect.
That's why it's a complete waste of time arguing with him...it's like arguing with a kid...




A little story about unions.............


Before I retired, I used to camp out on weekends with a couple of friends besides a small trout lake out in the boondocks.
One worked in a non-union shop, while the other was a confirmed union man. Me, I can see the advantages of both, and never really meddled in their friendly discussions.
After breakfast, we were sitting around having coffee while their grand-kids (with them for the weekend) were observing an ant hill.
One of the kids said, “My teacher says that ants are the best workers and an intelligent insect”.

I told him “Not true” and I went over to the breakfast table and got the bottle of corn syrup that the kids had used on their pancakes.
Then told them, observe the ants, they are all going around haphazardly with no purpose.
I then took the corn syrup and dropped some about 6 feet from the hill near one ant, which continued to walk around all over the place until she hit the corn syrup. When she had her fill she went zigzagging in the general direction of the hill...Soon another ant happened to cross the trail or scent of the first one and followed it to the corn syrup and after that made a somewhat straighter line for the hill. After a while there was a whole bunch of them were doing it.
I then got a foil liner off the cigarette pack of one of my friends who smoked and laid it paper side up on the ant (Trail). When one ant was on the paper I moved the paper 90 degrees and the ant the ant went of not knowing where to go. I then removed the paper and disturbed the trail.
All the ants after that when they got to where the paper had been they all seemed to go in different directions.

So, I told the kids,”See they're not so smart.....and(winking at my friends) just like union workers....all they are interested in is a collective free lunch, and when they have to make individual decisions...they are lost”

A perfect comparison for the 99'ers and their rote speeches
 
Colpy
#196
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

The whole "contraception is a against my religion" thing is a crock. Its not a tenet of faith, its an uneducated social policy statement made by some old men about the health and welfare of women, less than 50 years ago, and rationalized through the use of some vague language in the Bible. This isn't like one of the 10 Commandments. I think the most telling facts about this whole issue are:

- the vast majority of women in the US do utilize or at least believe that contraceptives are allowable
- the "congressional panel" called by the Republicans was almost exclusively men from outside the medical profession, not women and/or doctors
- that whenever ED medications and insurance coverage comes up, the silence is deafening.

The other issue at play here is the tone of the discussion. Yes Limbaugh is a shock jock, but that level of discourse has no place in rational discussion of political issues. My opinion is that he deserves to be censured, as he is, by advertisers. Whats alarming to me though is Limbaugh's tone isn't far removed from Rick Santorum who is still in play as a possible presidential candidate...

And when you are Pope, you get to dictate Catholic philosophy.

So far, as far as I know, you aint the Pope.

Truthfully, I absolutely agree.....I have no problem with contraception, and I think the Catholic Church is out of their gourd when it comes to their attitude on the subject.......

But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I disapprove of the gov't destroying the Church's right to form their own policies on moral issues.

The same way I would oppose laws against wearing the Burka, although it is obviously a blatant attack on the liberty of women.....
 
wulfie68
+1
#197
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

And when you are Pope, you get to dictate Catholic philosophy.

So far, as far as I know, you aint the Pope.

That's fair enough: I'm not even Catholic (closest I come is Mom grew up Catholic but was confirmed as a Lutheran before she married Dad). I could never be Catholic though (if I resolved my own issues of faith/belief) based on the way the hierarchy makes it up on the fly and then claims to speak for God.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Truthfully, I absolutely agree.....I have no problem with contraception, and I think the Catholic Church is out of their gourd when it comes to their attitude on the subject.......

But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I disapprove of the gov't destroying the Church's right to form their own policies on moral issues.

The same way I would oppose laws against wearing the Burka, although it is obviously a blatant attack on the liberty of women.....

I look at it a slightly different way: the Church isn't being told what they have to preach or believe, but rather an employer is being told what they have to provide for their employees and a guardian is being informed what they have to provide for those they assume responsibility for. If the Church removes itself from the role of employer/custodian/guardian, then the conflict goes away. The Catholic Church in particular is (and has been for a while) pushing the legal boundaries of religious freedom in the way it involves itself in the education system and they need to realize there is a point where their religious belief becomes subservient to the Law of the Land.
 
Locutus
+1
#198


Even this ******* knows how ridiculous the whole thing is.
 
TenPenny
#199
Yeah, I think Rush understands the dangers of prescription medicine.
 
coldstream
#200
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

The whole "contraception is a against my religion" thing is a crock. Its not a tenet of faith, its an uneducated social policy statement made by some old men about the health and welfare of women, less than 50 years ago, and rationalized through the use of some vague language in the Bible. This isn't like one of the 10 Commandments. I think the most telling facts about this whole issue are:

- the vast majority of women in the US do utilize or at least believe that contraceptives are allowable
- the "congressional panel" called by the Republicans was almost exclusively men from outside the medical profession, not women and/or doctors
- that whenever ED medications and insurance coverage comes up, the silence is deafening.

The other issue at play here is the tone of the discussion. Yes Limbaugh is a shock jock, but that level of discourse has no place in rational discussion of political issues. My opinion is that he deserves to be censured, as he is, by advertisers. Whats alarming to me though is Limbaugh's tone isn't far removed from Rick Santorum who is still in play as a possible presidential candidate...

Actually the only Church that prohibits artificial contraception is the Catholic Church, which is bound by the Encyclical Humanae Vitae promulgated by Paul VI.. and is intended to retain the integrity of the sexual act in the marriage.. rather than trivializing it to mere gratification. In this spirit it allows natural forms of contraception in marriage.. which is just as effective if properly practiced, and avoids the serious health implications of the Pill and interuterine devices.

The Catholic Church's problem with this is that they are being forced to provide contraception against its moral principles.. a major intrusion into the separation of Church and State.

Fluke has been making a fool of herself all over the media. And my guess has just about used up her 15 minutes of fame. She not smart enough to even identify the issues here.
Last edited by coldstream; Mar 7th, 2012 at 01:59 PM..
 
TenPenny
#201
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

Actually the only Church that prohibits artificial contraception is the Catholic Church, which is bound by the Encyclical Humanae Vitae promulgated by Paul VI.. and is intended to retain the integrity of the sexual act in the marriage.. rather than trivializing it to mere gratification. In this spirit it allows natural forms of contraception in marriage.. which is just as effective in properly practiced, and avoids the serious health implications of the Pill and interuterine devices.

That being the case, why would they allow their health plan to cover Viagra and Cialis? Speaking of mere gratification...
 
coldstream
#202
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

That being the case, why would they allow their health plan to cover Viagra and Cialis? Speaking of mere gratification...

There are no proscriptions against drugs like Viagra... however the user is bound by the same obligations of fidelity, responsibility and integrity that cover the Church's teachings on human sexuality.
Last edited by coldstream; Mar 7th, 2012 at 02:04 PM..
 
TenPenny
#203
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

There are no proscriptions against drugs like Viagra... however the user is bound by same obligations of fidelity and integrity that cover the Church's teachings on human sexuality.

Ah, so you're saying that the drug plan would only cover Viagra or Cialis when prescribed to a man who is married to a woman who has not gone through menopause, then.
 
Spade
#204
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

There are no proscriptions against drugs like Viagra... however the user is bound by the same obligations of fidelity, responsibility and integrity that cover the Church's teachings on human sexuality.


There is no prohibition against the use of contraceptives by Catholics in Canada. I am sure even Coldstream knows this.
 
coldstream
#205
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Ah, so you're saying that the drug plan would only cover Viagra or Cialis when prescribed to a man who is married to a woman who has not gone through menopause, then.


No. As i stated, the Church has no problem treating some systemic dysfunction. It limits its proscriptions to the way its faithful apply the gift of sexuality... as just that, a divine gift, rather than a gratuituous biological function. It's perfectly acceptable for a man to use Viagra or Cialis if he respects these codicils.
 
Spade
#206
Coldstream, you are being disingenuous. But, perhaps it is an innocent ignorance.
 
coldstream
#207
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

There is no prohibition against the use of contraceptives by Catholics in Canada. I am sure even Coldstream knows this.

You don't know what you are talking about Spade. The Church's teaching on contraception are Universal, not subject to national laws.. as are ALL of its moral tenets.
 
Spade
#208
Clearly you are ignorant of the Winnipeg Agreement.

I wish to hell those purporting to speak on behalf of their Church knew something about it.
 
TenPenny
+1
#209
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

No. As i stated, the Church has no problem treating some systemic dysfunction. It limits its proscriptions to the way its faithful apply the gift of sexuality... as just that, a divine gift, rather than a gratuituous biological function. It's perfectly acceptable for a man to use Viagra or Cialis if he respects these codicils.

How would it not be a gratuitous biological function if it is not for the purposes of procreation?
 
Spade
#210
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Clearly you are ignorant of the Winnipeg Agreement.

I wish to hell those purporting to speak on behalf of their Church knew something about it.


Bump
 

Similar Threads

217
Rush Limbaugh's ratings fall
by Icarus27k | Sep 21st, 2016
68
Rush LImbaugh's new conspiracy theory
by Tonington | May 4th, 2010
7
Oi, get the message!
by Blackleaf | Feb 8th, 2006
7
A Canada Day Message
by bluealberta | Jul 6th, 2005
no new posts