Limbaugh's message to 'feminazis'


gerryh
#211
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.


What is your point Spade? The Statement made by the Canadian Bishops did not and does not over ride the Holy Sees 1968 encyclical on human life and the regulation of birth.
 
Spade
#212
The Winnipeg Statement leaves the question of contraception up to the conscience of individual Catholics in Canada. It has never been rescinded. You know that the vast majority (approaching 98%; references on request) of Canadian Catholics follow their own conscience by practising birth control. Why are you supporting Coldstream's ultra-conservative position?

From the Winnipeg Statement
Quote:
"26. Counsellors may meet others who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father, find because of particular circumstances they are involved in what seems to them a clear conflict of duties, e.g., the reconciling of conjugal love and responsible parenthood with the education of children already born or with the health of the mother. In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience [Editor’s italics]."

If observance of a "ban" on contraception were made a criterion of Church membership, the pews would empty.
 
gerryh
+2
#213
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

The Winnipeg Statement leaves the question of contraception up to the conscience of individual Catholics in Canada. It has never been rescinded. You know that the vast majority (approaching 98%; references on request) of Canadian Catholics follow their own conscience by practising birth control. Why are you supporting Coldstream's ultra-conservative position?

From the Winnipeg Statement
Quote:
"26. Counsellors may meet others who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father, find because of particular circumstances they are involved in what seems to them a clear conflict of duties, e.g., the reconciling of conjugal love and responsible parenthood with the education of children already born or with the health of the mother. In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience [Editorís italics]."


The part in italics says it all for Canadians. That being said, if the University were in Canada, which it is not, I would still be supporting the University's call for contraception not to be covered for students. Students, in general, are not married. Therefore, the Catholic Churches stand is that they should NOT be having sex and do not NEED birth control.

Also, it is besides the point as to whether or not the majority or minority of Catholic kids have premarital sex.

Also, note that no Pope since the 1968 encyclical has made a supporting statement of the Canadian Bishops statements.

Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post


If observance of a "ban" on contraception were made a criterion of Church membership, the pews would empty.


and the Church would have to address that if that were to become a problem. That is the key though, it is up to the Church, NOT the government.
 
Spade
#214
No Pope has spoken against it. Married Catholics in Canada practise birth control, pure and simple.
 
gerryh
+2
#215
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

No Pope has spoken against it. Married Catholics in Canada practise birth control, pure and simple.

Yup, they do.
 
Spade
#216
Thank you, Gerry,

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Yup, they do.

for your honesty.
 
Tonington
+1
#217
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

which is just as effective if properly practiced, and avoids the serious health implications of the Pill and interuterine devices.

Health implications from personal choices should be discussed with practitioners in the health field, not a practitioner of faith...
 
gerryh
+3
#218
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Thank you, Gerry,



for your honesty.


Spade, there are a number of things that the Catholic Church "says" that I don't agree with, believe, or follow....BUT........ I would NEVER go to the government to have it changed. It is NOT the governments place, period.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Health implications from personal choices should be discussed with practitioners in the health field, not a practitioner of faith...

and if someone wants to have contraceptives included in their health coverage, they have the choice of going to a NON CATHOLIC educational institution.
 
bluebyrd35
#219
[QUOTE=Colpy;1556907]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.

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[/QUOTE)

Very few people kneel before either one. Although making a guess, the well indoctrinated do still kneel in a Catholic church.

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

Try to keep up. What the heck to you think this discussion is all about??? Certain insurance companies will not support women's birthcontrol, but do support Viagra or Cialis. It is all abouty a specific Catholic University using a portion of the student fees, the rest, being paid for by the students themselves, did not allow co pay of contraceptive pills for women They do this, inspite of it costing up to 12,500 for a single pregnancy, which is covered in most policies....... as is abortion $489.

If this were all about the preserving life, then shouldn't these numbskulls be supporting contraceptives instead of abortion?? Oh I know some backward states have come in with anti-abortion laws, but the insured, simply go to a state that does allow it.


Oh and 97 to 98% of Catholic women use birthcontrol pills. Nowhere in the Bible is there anything against using birthcontrol......it is merely a regulation of male dominated clergy.
Last edited by bluebyrd35; Mar 7th, 2012 at 05:24 PM..
 
gerryh
+2
#220
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

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.


There are non demonitional or non religious educational educational institutions that people can attend if they don't like or are incapable of following the rules of the religious educational institutions. No one is FORCING them to attend a Catholic school.

below is the start of bb's dogs breakfast.




[QUOTE=bluebyrd35;1557093]
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

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.



I don't kneel in front if either, but then I live in Canada. On the other hand, interference into the health concerns or the reproductive systems of either male or female body do not belong to the churches. They are supposed to be there to look after the spiritual and moral needs of people. This they appear unable to manage well, so I suppose the next best thing is try to increase the slavery population of the church by making it god's law. There is certainly NO verse in the bible that prohibits birth control. It is just not there!!



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[/QUOTE)

Very few people kneel before either one. Although making a guess, the well indoctrinated do still kneel in a Catholic church.

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

Try to keep up. What the heck to you think this discussion is all about??? Certain insurance companies will not support women's birthcontrol, but do support Viagra or Cialis. BECAUSE a specific Catholic University uses a portion of the student fees with the rest, being paid for by the students themselves, do not support the inclusion of contraceptive pills for women. This they do this, inspite of it costing up to 12,500 for a single pregnancy, which is covered....... as is abortion $489.

If this were all about the preserving life, then shouldn't these numbskulls be supporting contraceptives instead of abortion?? Oh I know some backward states have come in with anti-abortion laws, but the insured, simply go to a state that does allow it.


Oh and 97 to 98% of Catholic women use birthcontrol pills. Nowhere in the Bible is there anything against using birthcontrol......it is merely a regulation of male dominated clergy.


If you would learn to quote, people could actually rebut what you say....or is that the reason for the above dogs breakfast, to avoid any rebuttal?
Last edited by gerryh; Mar 7th, 2012 at 05:34 PM..
 
DaSleeper
+3
#221
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post



and if someone wants to have contraceptives included in their health coverage, they have the choice of going to a NON CATHOLIC educational institution.

Bingo!

When a student chooses a universty, the quality of education is part of the choice, why not include the type of insurance in that choice??
 
SLM
+4
#222
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Bingo!

When a student chooses a universty, the quality of education is part of the choice, why not include the type of insurance in that choice??


Or how about just simply to adhere to the principles of that institution, should it happen to not be a public one? That's what you weigh the quality education against, whether or not you can accept the rules and restrictions placed upon you from an institution you choose to attend. Is the quality of education available at Institution A worth the restrictions I would not have if I went to Institution B where the educational quality may not be so good? Seems a simple enough question to me.
 
gerryh
+4
#223
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Bingo!

When a student chooses a universty, the quality of education is part of the choice, why not include the type of insurance in that choice??


and if they believe that a Catholic institution will give them the best education for their vocation, then they should be prepared to follow the rules of that institution.
 
Cannuck
#224
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

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.

What I'm saying is that benefits are remuneration and there is no difference between wages, health benefits, company vehicle etc...

If company A gives it's employees a 200 benefit plan and company B gives its employees a 200 raise, folks like you think that employees from company A are "getting something for free" whereas the employees from company B are not. You are wrong. Not the first time. Won't be the last.
 
CDNBear
+2
#225
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

What I'm saying is that benefits are remuneration and there is no difference between wages, health benefits, company vehicle etc...

BS as usual.

There's a huge difference. Revenue Canada see things much differently.

Quote:

If company A gives it's employees a 200 benefit plan and company B gives its employees a 200 raise, folks like you think that employees from company A are "getting something for free" whereas the employees from company B are not. You are wrong. Not the first time. Won't be the last.

LOL.

Mean while, back in the real world.
 
captain morgan
+2
#226
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

What I'm saying is that benefits are remuneration and there is no difference between wages, health benefits, company vehicle etc...

If company A gives it's employees a 200 benefit plan and company B gives its employees a 200 raise, folks like you think that employees from company A are "getting something for free" whereas the employees from company B are not. You are wrong. Not the first time. Won't be the last.


Try taking your benefits package to the auto dealership and buying a new truck.

... Don't work too well.
 
Cannuck
+1 / -1
#227
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Try taking your benefits package to the auto dealership and buying a new truck.

... Don't work too well.

The benefit package won't buy a truck but the money saved can.

But, using your logic, people with benefit packages are worse off. That kinda flies in the face of Das' nonsense that people with benefits are getting something for free.
 
CDNBear
+1
#228
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

See?? now he's dancing the slip and slide....That crow out there ain't black.....it's the the opposite of white....

I know, rhetorical question, but did you actually expect anything but?

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Try taking your benefits package to the auto dealership and buying a new truck.

... Don't work too well.

Better yet, try telling Revenue Canada that they can't tax your raise, because you took it, instead of a health package.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

The benefit package won't buy a truck but the money saved can.

I see you ignored the post that punched a great big hole in your silly claim.

Quote:

But, using your logic, people with benefit packages are worse off. That kinda flies in the face of Das' nonsense that people with benefits are getting something for free.

DaS said that? Are we at the point of the conversation, where you start making stuff up about what people have said, already?

My time flies when Jimmy starts talking out his ass.
 
CDNBear
+2
#229
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

What I'm saying is that benefits are remuneration and there is no difference between wages, health benefits, company vehicle etc...

BS as usual.

There's a huge difference. Revenue Canada see things much differently.

I forgot to mention...

 
gerryh
#230
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Or how about just simply to adhere to the principles of that institution, should it happen to not be a public one? That's what you weigh the quality education against, whether or not you can accept the rules and restrictions placed upon you from an institution you choose to attend. Is the quality of education available at Institution A worth the restrictions I would not have if I went to Institution B where the educational quality may not be so good? Seems a simple enough question to me.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

and if they believe that a Catholic institution will give them the best education for their vocation, then they should be prepared to follow the rules of that institution.


bump.... to try and get back on track.
 
Cannuck
-1
#231
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Here's my Major Medical (MMED) before I turned 65..that is just the drug semi private coverage and dental...before I retired I didn't have to pay a cent.

Of course you paid. The place you worked gave you a benefit instead of raise in pay. As I said. If Company A gave its employees a benefit plan and Company B gave its employee an equivalent raise in salary, you wouldn't say the employees at company B are getting something for free. The companies (and the employees if it was negotiated) have simply agreed to a different type of remuneration.
 
Tonington
#232
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

and if someone wants to have contraceptives included in their health coverage, they have the choice of going to a NON CATHOLIC educational institution.

Soon to change.

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Bingo!

When a student chooses a universty, the quality of education is part of the choice, why not include the type of insurance in that choice??

Fluke spoke to this in her testimony, and she did factor in the insurance coverage. She chose to place education ahead of the insurance plan.
 
B00Mer
+2
#233
Advertisers Limbaugh has lost to date.. say's a lot for tolerance of hate speech.. Free Speech, yes.. lol

 
SLM
+1
#234
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Advertisers Limbaugh has lost to date.. say's a lot for tolerance of hate speech.. Free Speech, yes.. lol

Advertisers do not give a crap about speech, free, hate or otherwise.
 
B00Mer
+1
#235
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Advertisers do not give a crap about speech, free, hate or otherwise.

...so they pulled their advertising why?? I mean if you're going to reply with a blanket statement like that, why don't you explain then why advertisers are pulling ads from his radio show??

Maybe they don't want to go down with a sinking ship??

I wouldn't want my product associated with that kind of rhetoric and anti-feminist "hate speech".

For 1. I don't approve of that kind of bashing or hate speech, and 2. the almighty dollar.



..
Last edited by B00Mer; Mar 8th, 2012 at 06:03 AM..
 
SLM
#236
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

...so they pulled their advertising why?? I mean if you're going to reply with a blanket statement like that, why don't you explain then why advertisers are pulling ads from his radio show??

Maybe they don't want to go down with a sinking ship??

Of course they don't. But they are not pulling their advertising for some lofty ideals. Advertisers don't like controversy, they want a nice quiet way of getting you to buy their product. Pure and simple.

Quote:

I wouldn't want my product associated with that kind of rhetoric and anti-feminist "hate speech".

For 1. I don't approve of that kind of bashing or hate speech, and 2. the almighty dollar.

To be clear, I think Limbaugh is a tool. He's crass and overly theatrical. Not my cup of tea.
 
B00Mer
#237
...and this whole issue is because the state is going to pay for contraceptives, so women will be able to have more sex without getting pregnant..

Now please show me the downside here??

 
SLM
+2
#238
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

...and this whole issue is because the state is going to pay for contraceptives, so women will be able to have more sex without getting pregnant..

Now please show me the downside here??

Ah, so it's less about your disdain with "anti-feminist hate speech" and more about you just looking for a little easy action?

Lol, invest in Trojans.
 
captain morgan
+1
#239
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Soon to change.

... And you would be equally supportive if the gvt had planned to mandate religious ideals on the entire population 'for their own good'?

Careful what you wish for

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Fluke spoke to this in her testimony, and she did factor in the insurance coverage. She chose to place education ahead of the insurance plan.

This says a lot. Fluke targeted a school that did not meet her individual needs but chose it for the opportunity to push her agenda.

The way I see it, she chose her agenda ahead of both her education and well being.

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Lol, invest in Trojans.


Apparently the sex isn't any good unless they are gvt issued Trojans.

Maybe Fluke has some weird kink that she fantasies about screwing the gvt on their own dime
 
gerryh
+2
#240
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Soon to change.



Fluke spoke to this in her testimony, and she did factor in the insurance coverage. She chose to place education ahead of the insurance plan.

Elaborate on your first statement.

If she made the choice then why the push to have the government intervene?
 

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