Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke

[Pogo]

Oh look, another atheist ignoramus who doesn't understand the difference between "freedom of religion" and "theocracy".

Moron.

Religion has nothing to do with a political party platform -- unless that platform is theocracy. Illogic4All brought up a red herring; so I ate it. Go get your own dinner. ::urp::

 

[logical4u]

We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.

That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children. There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State." The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.

The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people. Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.

There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them. Most comply with 501c regulations. What does this mean? It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear. However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it? They can't. Find and read the book, "In Caesar's Grip," to fully understand this issue. But you won't find it in any public library or school library. Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.

It is not unconstitutional. Churches and church people at church can talk about politics all they want. If it is during religious services, the church property is subject to taxation.

Want tax exempt status? No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.

The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.

Regards from Rosie

I was unaware that "freedom of speech" had locations written in the Constitution, where "freedom of speech" was applicable, and other locations where "freedom of speech" was not applicable.

 

[koshergrl]

Read my comment again until it sinks in.

"....doesn't understand the difference between "freedom of religion" and "theocracy".

 

[koshergrl]

That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children. There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State." The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.

The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people. Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.

There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them. Most comply with 501c regulations. What does this mean? It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear. However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it? They can't. Find and read the book, "In Caesar's Grip," to fully understand this issue. But you won't find it in any public library or school library. Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.

It is not unconstitutional. Churches and church people at church can talk about politics all they want. If it is during religious services, the church property is subject to taxation.

Want tax exempt status? No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.

The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.

Regards from Rosie

I was unaware that "freedom of speech" had locations written in the Constitution, where "freedom of speech" was applicable, and other locations where "freedom of speech" was not applicable.

She also maintains that PP is somehow exempt from the imaginary rules she maintains the church must adhere to...

Just another zealot wanting to torch the churches. SSDD

 

[Pogo]

Read my comment again until it sinks in.

"....doesn't understand the difference between "freedom of religion" and "theocracy".

Thanks but your posts don't sink. They evaporate.

 

[koshergrl]

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
Posts: 2,406
Thanks: 826
Thanked 690 Times in 494 Posts
Rep Power: 425

You'll pardon me if I don't look to you as the arbiter of worthwhile posting.

 

[logical4u]

That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children. There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State." The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.

The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people. Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.

There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them. Most comply with 501c regulations. What does this mean? It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear. However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it? They can't. Find and read the book, "In Caesar's Grip," to fully understand this issue. But you won't find it in any public library or school library. Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.

This is one of the main pillars of liberalism: Proclaim there must a "separation of church and state" then have the state take over every aspect of our lives, which pushes religion out.

This is what has led to government seeping into health care, and now they are trying to force a religious institution that provides health care to do something against their own religion. Its trying to force religion out of health, to supplant it with government.

The end game is always have the government in charge, and no religion in sight.

To do something against their own religion? To be competitive, the health insurance of lay employees includes birth control.

The students are not asking for anything the Catholic Church hasn't already been doing.

The "religious freedom" argument is a red herring.

Regards from Rosie

It could be pointed out that "employees" are typically married (adults on their own), and not impressionable college students that are "unmarried". That the church providing contraceptives for students could be seen as "corrupting" the young students (doesn't matter what the facts are). That would be leading the youth into sinful ways.

 

[Pogo]

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
Posts: 2,406
Thanks: 826
Thanked 690 Times in 494 Posts
Rep Power: 425

You'll pardon me if I don't look to you as the arbiter of worthwhile posting.

--- see what I mean?

 

[logical4u]

Abstenance has failed once again

As has the lie that abortion and birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancy.

In fact, line the two up...fewer unplanned pregnancies prior to the pill and abortion. Which works better?

How many would there be with abstenance only and the rhythm method?

Ummm, if "abstenance" was used, there would be NO unwanted pregnancies.

 

[logical4u]

yes, i found rush limbaugh's attack on sandra fluke so vile and disgusting as to change my opinion of the republican party. That none of the republican presidential candidates spoke so much as a word to distance themselves from this disgraceful display, was even worse.

Added to the repeated references to "legitimate rape", forced transvaginal ultrasounds in republican states, a party platform which supports banning all abortions, no exception for the life of the woman, and the refusal of republican senators to listen to women's points of view on birth control, these are the reasons why 60% of women voted democrat.

The only female demographic to vote for romney in large numbers was married white women. So by all means, continue to refer to ms. Fluke as a slut who wanted the government to pay her to have sex. Every time you do, it reminds women that republican lawmakers have no respect for women's rights and voting republican is voting against their economic best interests. Women vote with their pocket books too.

just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).

.
I think I know whose ass you're pulling this out of. That explains his expression --

Got it.
That makes one lib hypocrit.....

next

 

[logical4u]

There are many intelligent women in this ruby red area of Florida who vote against their own interests because they are avoiding cognitive dissonance. The pulpit and the party are congruent as to the Gawd-ordained subordinate role of women.

When Republicans complain that Dems take Gawd out of their platform they are talking directly about the Dems not having the pulpit - party link.

All the more reason to have churches pay property tax. They are electioneering, beyond a doubt. Let them pay taxes and be honest about directing church members votes.

Regards from Rosie

Maybe those women choose to "vote against their own interests" because they are voting for the good of the country and not their own self centered interests.....

No, when the dems took the LORD out of their platform, it left room for all that is "anti-LORD" (that would be evil: corruption, deception, decay, death, destruction). So far, it looks like the libs are embracing all that is anti-LORD.

You want a theocracy? Book a flight to Riyadh. We have government independent of religion in this country. Don't like it? There's the door.

Asinine self-righteous crap. There is no "lord" in a political platform. There's also no Buddha, no Allah, no Krishna, no nuttin'. There's just We the People. Like it or lump it.

Say it ain't so.... another liberal that is unaware of the vote at the Democrat convention where a vote was taken to put "God" back into the Democrat platform. So many booed and voiced oposition the vote was taken three times. The third time there was no clear winner, but the vote was called for "God" to be put back in the platform because the Dems knew how bad it would be if the LORD was not in their platform.

And I do not care to go to Riyadh, that is more in line with lib thinking: have a tyrant or dictator to force people to "go along" with the tyrant's wishes. I prefer Christianity where people can have discussions about the LORD and what is in the Bible. Each person is responsible for their "own" relationship with the LORD. Those that try to live according to the LORD are blessed, and those that are near them, also receive those blessings or the affects of them.

BTW, do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood? Why?

 

[logical4u]

Apparently someone's not entirely clear on the distinction between a "joke" and "character assassination".

Just for a starter-hint, "jokes" do not go on for three days.
Duh.

53 of Rush Limbaugh's most vile smears against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke - YouTube

"Was he wrong about the facts?" Just for one example at 6:31: "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it.". No, it was not, because Fluke never talked about herself; it was Rash Pimpjob who said that, and no one else. Do me a favor and count up how many times he repeats the same lie, because I can't sit through it.

Had Limblob's rant actually been about the issue of funding sources of contraception, that would be the issue remembered and discussed. It wasn't. Limblob as usual makes it a personal fantasy, spewing his ad hominem all over Fluke (and others, e.g. Nancy Pelosi) so that the issue that remains, even now a year later, is the personal attack by the fake morals of a man on his fourth wife who was busted coming back from the DR with a stash of Viagra.

Only a misogynist could possibly defend that level of self-indulgent subhumanoid hypocrisy.

Are you admitting that Rubio is having his character assasinated by the left (because it has been more than 3 days over the water bottle)?

You're having a torrid romance with this guy tonight huh?

Red non sequitur herring made of straw, all packed into a single line. Bravo.

Did I catch you in your own words? Ahh, bring out the dodges.

 

[Pogo]

just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).

.
I think I know whose ass you're pulling this out of. That explains his expression --

Got it.
That makes one lib hypocrit.....

next

No, it makes one more strawman torched.

New at this?

 

[Pogo]

Maybe those women choose to "vote against their own interests" because they are voting for the good of the country and not their own self centered interests.....

No, when the dems took the LORD out of their platform, it left room for all that is "anti-LORD" (that would be evil: corruption, deception, decay, death, destruction). So far, it looks like the libs are embracing all that is anti-LORD.

You want a theocracy? Book a flight to Riyadh. We have government independent of religion in this country. Don't like it? There's the door.

Asinine self-righteous crap. There is no "lord" in a political platform. There's also no Buddha, no Allah, no Krishna, no nuttin'. There's just We the People. Like it or lump it.

Say it ain't so.... another liberal that is unaware of the vote at the Democrat convention where a vote was taken to put "God" back into the Democrat platform. So many booed and voiced oposition the vote was taken three times. The third time there was no clear winner, but the vote was called for "God" to be put back in the platform because the Dems knew how bad it would be if the LORD was not in their platform.

And I do not care to go to Riyadh, that is more in line with lib thinking: have a tyrant or dictator to force people to "go along" with the tyrant's wishes. I prefer Christianity where people can have discussions about the LORD and what is in the Bible. Each person is responsible for their "own" relationship with the LORD. Those that try to live according to the LORD are blessed, and those that are near them, also receive those blessings or the affects of them.

BTW, do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood? Why?

I didn't watch it; heard some vague talk about it and didn't bother to look into it. Because it's irrelevant. A political convention isn't a church; whoever put God/the lord/the cosmic muffin in there was wrong and a panderer.

I do not live in a religiously dictated neighborhood, no. I can't imagine why one would want that. My neighbours' individual religious practices are no concern of mine, because I for one recognize that religion is personal, moreover I know how to mind my own bidness. Perhaps it's different in Riyadh.

You prefer Xianity, fine, whatever. Keep it in the church where it belongs and out the hell of politics. We founded this nation to get away from that dictatorial crap.

 

[logical4u]

.
I think I know whose ass you're pulling this out of. That explains his expression --

Got it.
That makes one lib hypocrit.....

next

No, it makes one more strawman torched.

New at this?

The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut". I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed)."

And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.

This is why libs cannot win. If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.

 

[logical4u]

You want a theocracy? Book a flight to Riyadh. We have government independent of religion in this country. Don't like it? There's the door.

Asinine self-righteous crap. There is no "lord" in a political platform. There's also no Buddha, no Allah, no Krishna, no nuttin'. There's just We the People. Like it or lump it.

Say it ain't so.... another liberal that is unaware of the vote at the Democrat convention where a vote was taken to put "God" back into the Democrat platform. So many booed and voiced oposition the vote was taken three times. The third time there was no clear winner, but the vote was called for "God" to be put back in the platform because the Dems knew how bad it would be if the LORD was not in their platform.

And I do not care to go to Riyadh, that is more in line with lib thinking: have a tyrant or dictator to force people to "go along" with the tyrant's wishes. I prefer Christianity where people can have discussions about the LORD and what is in the Bible. Each person is responsible for their "own" relationship with the LORD. Those that try to live according to the LORD are blessed, and those that are near them, also receive those blessings or the affects of them.

BTW, do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood? Why?

I didn't watch it; heard some vague talk about it and didn't bother to look into it. Because it's irrelevant. A political convention isn't a church; whoever put God/the lord/the cosmic muffin in there was wrong and a panderer.

I do not live in a religiously dictated neighborhood, no. I can't imagine why one would want that. My neighbours' individual religious practices are no concern of mine, because I for one recognize that religion is personal, moreover I know how to mind my own bidness. Perhaps it's different in Riyadh.

You prefer Xianity, fine, whatever. Keep it in the church where it belongs and out the hell of politics. We founded this nation to get away from that dictatorial crap.

Again, the dodge. I did not ask you if your neighborhood was "religiously dictated". I asked you if your neighbors were Christians.

Christianity is about sharing the "good news". It is not about keeping the knowledge "under a basket". Check the reason people came to these shores way back when, and you will find it was so they "could" worship the LORD (Christian), as they chose. It was that particular belief, that required the first amendment (along with the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights, rights that were granted by the Creator, not the gov't). Just in case you are interested in "truth".

BTW, take a good look at countries where religion is "discouraged", the murders, the corruption is far worse than any "religious wars" in this world's history. But I suspect you are not interested in truth, just some wet dream of an intellectual elite that is tricking you into subjugation.

 

[Pogo]

Say it ain't so.... another liberal that is unaware of the vote at the Democrat convention where a vote was taken to put "God" back into the Democrat platform. So many booed and voiced oposition the vote was taken three times. The third time there was no clear winner, but the vote was called for "God" to be put back in the platform because the Dems knew how bad it would be if the LORD was not in their platform.

And I do not care to go to Riyadh, that is more in line with lib thinking: have a tyrant or dictator to force people to "go along" with the tyrant's wishes. I prefer Christianity where people can have discussions about the LORD and what is in the Bible. Each person is responsible for their "own" relationship with the LORD. Those that try to live according to the LORD are blessed, and those that are near them, also receive those blessings or the affects of them.

BTW, do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood? Why?

I didn't watch it; heard some vague talk about it and didn't bother to look into it. Because it's irrelevant. A political convention isn't a church; whoever put God/the lord/the cosmic muffin in there was wrong and a panderer.

I do not live in a religiously dictated neighborhood, no. I can't imagine why one would want that. My neighbours' individual religious practices are no concern of mine, because I for one recognize that religion is personal, moreover I know how to mind my own bidness. Perhaps it's different in Riyadh.

You prefer Xianity, fine, whatever. Keep it in the church where it belongs and out the hell of politics. We founded this nation to get away from that dictatorial crap.

Again, the dodge. I did not ask you if your neighborhood was "religiously dictated". I asked you if your neighbors were Christians.

Christianity is about sharing the "good news". It is not about keeping the knowledge "under a basket". Check the reason people came to these shores way back when, and you will find it was so they "could" worship the LORD (Christian), as they chose. It was that particular belief, that required the first amendment (along with the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights, rights that were granted by the Creator, not the gov't). Just in case you are interested in "truth".

BTW, take a good look at countries where religion is "discouraged", the murders, the corruption is far worse than any "religious wars" in this world's history. But I suspect you are not interested in truth, just some wet dream of an intellectual elite that is tricking you into subjugation.

No, you said "do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?"

What the hell's an "atheist neighbourhood"? Or a "Christian neighbourhood" Where do you come from that neighbourhoods are set up that way? I suspect there are both Christians and atheists (and others) in my neighbourhood -- who cares? What Christianism is "about" is irrelevant here. This is not a religion thread. Stop hijacking it. And in the same way, a political party convention (of any party) is a secular, not a religious exercise.

Your last paragraph is yet another strawman wrapped in a hasty generalization. Or maybe the other way round. Either way, entirely irrelevant here.

(/offtopic)

 

[Pogo]

Got it.
That makes one lib hypocrit.....

next

No, it makes one more strawman torched.

New at this?

The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut". I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed)."

And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.

This is why libs cannot win. If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.

My lack of god, you are new at this.

I didn't "ignore a legitimate question"; I highlighted an illegitimate one. Nobody said anything about women needing or not needing guns; you just made that up. That's what "strawman" means; something you just make up, then attribute it to some opponent (in this case a disembodied blanket) and then attack your own point.

Can't believe I have to explain this. Methinks you need a new name, because this one's way ironic.

 

[Pogo]

And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.

This is why libs cannot win. If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.

"Calling names" like "slut"?
Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?

Oh wait... that was all your side.
Never mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're actually arguing the Limblob side without being aware of this??

"She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception." -- Limblob, 2/29

"A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex they're going broke, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control." -- Limblob, 3/1

And in this thread, this was a classic -- I include the whole quote for the fuzzy linear time logic:


::urp:: I gotta get off this low-hanging fruit diet...

I was right then, he did not say contraception cost more if you have more sex, you just want to pretend he did.

Oh come off it, you're embarrassing yourself. All three of those statements are a comparison of degree: "so much that she can't afford" means what she can afford, and therefore how much it costs, depends on how much sex she has. "So much sex that they're going broke" -- exactly the same thing; "if they were having less sex, they wouldn't go broke". Both of these require a direct relationship between the cost of birth control and the amount of sex. I can't believe I have to actually explain this to anyone who's presumably attained the age of six who speaks English.

Then there's "If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute", a veritable Certs roll of logical fallacies, which like the two Limblob idiocies, lives ignorant of the fact that birth control is a fixed expense regardless whether the woman is having "much" sex or no sex at all, ergo how much sex a woman has changes the expense of BC not one iota.

I can't believe you're actually willing to play this dumb. You have no shame.

Can I point out the obvious here, or will it cause you brain to explode. Even if a woman is on the pill every doctor and health expert in this country recommends that she use a condom and/or a dental dam when she has sex. That is because, despite your abysmal ignorance, the Pill does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases, and even lesbians can catch a disease from having sex with an infected partner.

The cost of that would actually be dependent upon how much sex one has.

That said, Rush was using reductio ad absurdum to make a fucking point, one which obviously escaped the mental capacity that insists there is a difference between cannot afford and struggles financially.