Sandra Fluke open comment post

Since two articles have gotten thread-jacked with the dispute about Sandra Fluke and the comments made about her by Rush Limbaugh, I have closed one, and will be asking on the other to keep on the original topic, thread is now opened specifically for discussion concerning the point Miss Fluke made.

581 Comments

  1. “So, because I disagree with your positions, and Miss Fluke’s, I am “a tiresome boor,” apparently especially so.”

    Wagonwheel punked you pretty good there. You didn’t recognise that those words had been said before on this thread?

  2. WW complains:

    And put this all in the context of the continual attack on Sandra Fluke, which has generated a record breaking almost 500 comments, and you have the characterization of most of you so-called Conservatives on here, as nasty, bitter, cranky, lying lemmings.

    What do you have to say for yourself, DNW?

    PS: And most remarkable is that our Editor, who claims to have a “Comments and Content Policy” which will be enforced, hardly is when the perps are those of his own stripe. This is all so obvious!

    Perhaps the Editor misses some of the comments. As you noted, this thread alone has (now) over 500, and the Editor sometimes misses things.

    Guess what, Mr Editor, this blog is headed down the tubes as well, due to your negligence.

    Yet, like a moth drawn to a flame, you continue to visit! :)

  3. Miss Nova wrote:

    “So, because I disagree with your positions, and Miss Fluke’s, I am “a tiresome boor,” apparently especially so.”

    Wagonwheel punked you pretty good there. You didn’t recognise that those words had been said before on this thread?

    I knew that they were a quote of some form, because they were in, radically enough, quotation marks. I did not recognize them. I subsequently found them and applied the comments policy.

  4. “I knew that they were a quote of some form, because they were in, radically enough, quotation marks. I did not recognize them. I subsequently found them and applied the comments policy.”

    And what exactly do you intend to do about those commentators on the right who are repeat offenders with such remarks?

    You banned Wagonwheel for two weeks – do you intend to apply yourself fairly or simply confirm the impression of conservatives as master hypocrites?

  5. SINP writes

    Talk about negative things, never a word from you about those real negative attack dogs on your side, like ropelight, like Hitchcock, like Hoagie, never a word. What does this say about you?

    Why do write such utter nonsense? Do you ever say a word about Anna aka PIATOR? Of course not. How long did it even take you to condemn Bill Maher, et al? Several days — when I condemned Limbaugh the very next day.

    Give us all a royal freaking break already.

  6. And what exactly do you intend to do about those commentators on the right who are repeat offenders with such remarks?

    You banned Wagonwheel for two weeks – do you intend to apply yourself fairly or simply confirm the impression of conservatives as master hypocrites?

    Of course, unsurprisingly, you forgot about SINP’s threat to Hube, threat to myself, and stating that Hoagie was engaged in criminal activity. That’s quite a bit above simple Internet insults now, isn’t it?

  7. Koolo says: March 7, 2012 at 13:49

    —-
    Limbaugh sponsors increasing, it seems:

    “We have three brand new sponsors that will be starting in the next two weeks. Obviously I’m not going to tell you who they are today, but we’ve got three brand new full-fledged sponsors that will be starting in the next two weeks,” Limbaugh said. “Two of the sponsors who have sponsored have asked to return.”
    —-

    Here’s why he didn’t say who they were

    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/03/15/god-hates-fags-church-preparing-ad-for-limbaugh-show/

    —-
    ‘God Hates Fags’ Church Preparing Ad for Limbaugh Show

    Guess who’s knocking on Rush Limbaugh’s door as his advertisers flee like rats from a sinking ship? It’s the people behind the infamous GodHatesFags website — the Westboro Baptist Church, the most notorious gay-bashing group in America — and they’re ready to step in to keep the embattled Limbaugh on the air.

    “As a matter of fact, I can confirm that,” Westboro spokesman Steve Drain told Hatewatch today when asked if the church was seeking to advertise on “The Rush Limbaugh Show.” “We’re preparing our first ad at this very moment, and we’ll have a 30-second radio spot ready to go by Friday.”
    —-

    Well, isn’t that interesting? Rush loses over 140 advertisers (as of last count) including Ford, GM, McDonalds and Subway – and replaces them with Fred Phelps and his little family.

    Yeah, that’s working out well.

  8. “As a matter of fact, I can confirm that,” Westboro spokesman Steve Drain told Hatewatch today when asked if the church was seeking to advertise on “The Rush Limbaugh Show.” “We’re preparing our first ad at this very moment, and we’ll have a 30-second radio spot ready to go by Friday.”

    Of course, this doesn’t say that Limbaugh’s show is accepting these ads, only that the idiot Phelps church is seeking to advertise on the show.

    About what exactly, Koolo?

    Oh, is this the “birds of a feather” routine? Playing the hypocrite and/or victim? Please. If it isn’t here (and admittedly, it has been better here), then it was at CSPT when he failed to utter a peep about you.

  9. “Oh, is this the “birds of a feather” routine?”

    That’s what I thought. You know you and your friends routinely violate the supposed “comments policy”, you know others don’t, but you just assume a false equivalence.

  10. One professional radio analyst suggested that Rush Limbaugh is probably enjoying his largest audiences ever thanks to the publicity. However, since there hasn’t been a radio ratings period since the Sandra Fluke episode began, we don’t know yet.

  11. “SINP writes

    Talk about negative things, never a word from you about those real negative attack dogs on your side, like ropelight, like Hitchcock, like Hoagie, never a word. What does this say about you?

    Why do write such utter nonsense? Do you ever say a word about Anna aka PIATOR? Of course not. How long did it even take you to condemn Bill Maher, et al? Several days — when I condemned Limbaugh the very next day.

    Give us all a royal freaking break already.”

    What is this? When I complained about Maher, but not as quickly as koolo would have liked, then I failed. This is the mark of a tyrant. Moreover, on your not complaining about the behavior of your fellow Righties, well I was correct, wasn’t I? This is the behavior of a partisan hypocrite of the worst kind.

    And now you complain about Anna Nova, who is the best example of civil behavior on this blog. Moreover, Ms Nova peppers you with facts, to which your ilk rarely responds. Sore losers speak like you do, koolo, yet you continue with your childish behavior. And you claim to be a teacher. I don’t believe it, either that, or you should not be one, for god’s sake!!!

  12. “One professional radio analyst suggested that Rush Limbaugh is probably enjoying his largest audiences ever thanks to the publicity. However, since there hasn’t been a radio ratings period since the Sandra Fluke episode began, we don’t know yet.”

    If that’s true, it’s like porno to this particular class of civil deviates, most of whom are probably Repubs, you know, the ones who have lost their sense of decency in recent years!

  13. “Oh, is this the “birds of a feather” routine? Playing the hypocrite and/or victim? Please. If it isn’t here (and admittedly, it has been better here), then it was at CSPT when he failed to utter a peep about you.”

    Which is just one more untruth by koolo, whose nasty partisan modus operandi has become quite apparent on here. On CSPT, when Dana called for civility, it was the Righties who did not respond, and Dana never followed up. The same phenomenon is happening here all over again, so what’s the use? Again, Anna Nova is the model of civility on this blog. You should follow her example, koolo.

    Now let’s get back on topic, which is the other function here which should be the primary function, instead of having to deal with all this dysfunction.

  14. Did anyone see Sandra Fluke on the Ed show last night? To her favor, she refused to be baited to go after Rush Limbaugh or any of the other Rightie nasties who have done their best to demean her character. She is an activist, that is true, but she is a kind and soft spoken person. She sets a wonderful example for us all to see!

  15. Thank you, Mr Editor, for enforcing your “Comments and Contents Policy” as needed on both sides, with a reasonable degree of impartiality.

    I cannot help but point out once more that Anna Nova remains the model on here for civil discourse and factual information.

    Mr Editor, you take second place, in my view, due to your widespread use of the straw man fallacy, and your own occasional insults, which is your privilege on your own blog – I understand that.

    Otherwise, the majority of your discourse is indeed civil, though your ideological selectivity causes me to be in opposition to most of what you preach! :(

  16. SINP writes

    What is this? When I complained about Maher, but not as quickly as koolo would have liked, then I failed. This is the mark of a tyrant

    Right. This — from the guy who complained that I didn’t denounce Limbaugh vociferously enough, even though I did it virtually immediately after the topic appeared on this blog. I, mostly, constantly asked you to condemn Maher, et al, yet you refused for days.

    You see, SINP? This is yet another example in an interminable line of examples of your preposterous two-faceness. You complained about me and others for not criticizing Limbaugh (or doing “forcefully enough”), yet when I (and others) point out your tardiness in blasting Maher, et al, this is “the mark of a tyrant.” Do you even try to be consistent? Or do you just throw this garbage out there, hoping we’ll actually forget? Whatever it is, it’s ridiculous. Despite your hatred of Hitchcock, at least he’s right about one thing: You do possess a definite passive-aggressive personality, each manifesting itself whenever the mood (voluntarily or not) suits you.

  17. SINP writes

    Koolo, I’m just not going to engage with you on this childish nonsense

    Well, that makes sense at least. You certainly wouldn’t want to look any more childish than you have already.

  18. Wagonwheel says:
    March 15, 2012 at 16:22

    ’1. I’m wondering how you know the words were aimed at you. The ropelight comment didn’t bear an addressee’s name.’

    You addressed me directly, DNW. How not clear is that? You might also take note of the position of the quotation marks I used. So yes, you fell right into the trap, criticizing me, when the words were ropelight’s, which you ignored when he used them against me. My point has been made! Thank you!!”

    Unfortunately for you Perry, the points you’ve made are not the points which you hope to persuade others that you’ve made. You have however, proved you jumped to a faulty conclusion regarding the target of ropelight’s [not Koolo's as you claimed] remarks. That point is made.

    You have also proved you let your extreme emotionalism carry you away, that you stored up resentment against the Editor, and that you then used an insult you mistakenly thought was directed at you, as the second paragraph in a two paragraph series of insults you directed at the Editor for his crime of having questioned the effect of Ms Fluke’s and kinds’ contraceptive cost claims on insurance premiums. That point, unfortunately for you, has been nailed down too.

    The last point you have made, somewhat more indirectly, is that you are apparently incapable of grasping the concept or significance of a timeline, and understanding that effects – at least as we experience them in this level of reality – follow from, rather than precede causes.

    When for example, you triumphantly exclaim to me [ March 15, 2012 at 13:22] that you have quoted some material (You had previously gotten the attribution wrong as well as the target), on the assumption that missing such a point is of great substantive importance, it is best to “introduce” this fact before rather than after I have already [March 15, 2012 at 10:32] noted that you were quoting the abusive material, and implied that it made no difference to your use, or case.

    To amplify that last comment. Your guilt in redirecting the offending paragraph at the Editor because you were upset with his skepticism regarding the negligibility of the cost of certain claims on premiums, is in no way lessened by the circumstance that you merely grabbed a rock which Joe had already thrown at Mike, in order to throw it at the Editor. Especially, given that the material in question formed the second of an immediate series of attacks in same comment. The first of which, was thought up on your own.

    Thus:

    Wagonwheel says:
    March 15, 2012 at 08:41

    [Editor's question]

    “Now, how can an insurance company simply absorb an up to $1,000 a year outlay on a $1,895 policy, without significantly increasing the premiums?”

    [Perry's retorts] You have absolutely no knowledge, Mr Editor, to make this statement.[Sic] This is your usual technique of assuming something which you no nothing about, then put it forward as a fact, which is what this entire thread is all about. It is about you nasty, cranky, right wing extremists on here, who are ideologically opposed to Sandra Fluke’s testimony, and have used every straw man they could find to attack her viciously, and undeservedly!

    So you especially, Mr Editor, “are a tiresome boor, the problem is you. You changed your name but the stench remains. The low-brow insults, the mean-spirited ugliness, the twisted misrepresentations, and the blatant dishonesty, they’re all hallmarks of a sick and perverted mind displaying it’s malignant obsessions to an audience grown weary of witnessing your descent into rabid madness.”

    Again, we note that you start off formulating your own invective and abuse, and hurling it at the Editor because he has posed a question in a way you didn’t like: ” … Mr Editor … This is your usual technique of assuming something which you no nothing about, then put it forward as a fact, which is what this entire thread is all about. It is about you nasty, cranky, right wing extremists …”

    Then, having successfully if inadvertently established your pique as authentic and as your own, you proceed to cast about for yet more abuse to throw at the Editor, and find it lying handy in an unaddressed insult which you have mistakenly assumed had been leveled at you personally. And so you pick it up and make it your own: “So you especially, Mr Editor, ‘are a tiresome boor, the problem is you. You changed your name but the stench remains. The low-brow insults, the mean-spirited ugliness, the twisted misrepresentations, and the blatant dishonesty, they’re all hallmarks of a sick and perverted mind displaying it’s malignant obsessions to an audience grown weary of witnessing your descent into rabid madness.’ ”

    Trap, Perry? The only trap here Perry, is the one into which you stuck your own tongue.

  19. “I cannot help but point out once more that Anna Nova remains the model on here for civil discourse and factual information. “

    From the observation that you cannot help yourself from saying so, it does not follow that it is so.

    Speaking somewhat abstractly … You can for example, watch a troll up in doll’s clothes, and begin talking in an assumed voice, but recognize the same old behavioral patterns at work nonetheless.

  20. BTW, when unsure of to whom an unspecified comment is addressed, the rule of the most recent antecedent generally applies.

    However, since the name can be a bit confusing here’s an explication: that’s antecedent with an e which means before or previous, as distinguished from antecedent with an i which means after, as in antebellum or after the war.

    Although it may seem simple enough, in quickly moving threads one may intend to respond to the most recent comment and yet find that when the response posts there have been several intervening comments. Opportunity for confusion abounds.

    Henceforth, I’ll try to address my comments, especially the insulting ones, to a specific, identified, individual. There’s no reason our host should suffer from the ignorance and errors of presumptuous poltroons.

  21. “Speaking somewhat abstractly … You can for example, watch a troll up in doll’s clothes, and begin talking in an assumed voice, but recognize the same old behavioral patterns at work nonetheless.”

    I’m talking about civility and fact based debate, of which we see little of either from your side, you included DNW, the exception being our Editor, whose major flaw is an overabundant use of the good old straw man fallacy.

    Your linguistic ability is exemplary, but you lose the debate/point, in my opinion, when the facts are sparse and the overview is lacking, in my opinion, like in the above quote/attack!

    That said, I don’t view myself as the paragon here, but again, I think Anna Nova tops you all, which seems to anger you and your side no end, instead of your stepping up to the challenge she presents.

  22. My second paragraph at 16:21 above is burdened with error, please replace it with the following. Thanks.

    However, since the name can be a bit confusing here’s an explication: that’s ante- with an e which means before or previous, as distinguished from the prefix anti- with an i which means against.

    Example: antebellum is a time before the war, and antiwar means against or opposed to war.

  23. Wagonwheel, you have indeed been PIATOR’s prawn (I could’ve used “pawn” but “prawn” is more fitting) as he spewed his uncontrollable and uncontrolled hate-speech all over CSPT. And you have been busy here spewing your uncontrollable and uncontrolled hate-speech all over this site. It was, after all, you who were suspended because of your direct threats against others on this site and your false allegations of criminal activity against another on this site (which could easily have cost him multiple thousands of dollars had a government entity decided to “investigate”). None of us have accused you of criminal activities, nor have we threatened you in any way, shape, or form, but you have against us. And you have used all manner of absolutely false, derogatory, and inflammatory attacks against all whom you perceive as your enemies.

    Of all who post here, you Wagonwheel are the most inflammatory, most uncivil, most egregious, most dishonorable, without reservation! And the way you personally attacked the man who pays his own money so you can blog for free on someone else’s dime is absolutely reprehensible!

    You say the Editor has been far too lax in his adherence to the conduct policy. I agree. Multiple people called for you to be banned for your threats and false accusations of criminality. I know. I was privy to much of that email. And I was part of that email. The fact the Editor allowed you to stay after a very brief banning for your absolutely egregious activity is proof positive the Editor has been too lax with his conduct policy.

    But you are the beneficiary of that, not the victim. So stop playing victim! It bores the solid waste out of me.

  24. “Trap, Perry? The only trap here Perry, is the one into which you stuck your own tongue.”

    Clearly you are squirming, DNW.

    As Anna Nova accurately stated, you were punked, yet don’t have the character to admit it.

    Moreover, I point out again, regarding inappropriate language, that you Righties routinely single out your political opponents, yet overlook the vile language and personal attacks made by those on your side, you too DNW.

    There is a character issue there – face it!

  25. “Multiple people called for you to be banned for your threats and false accusations of criminality.”

    I don’t believe you, Mr Hitchcock. Prove it! Need I remind you that this is not your blog. You seem to forget that at times.

    “Of all who post here, you Wagonwheel are the most inflammatory, most uncivil, most egregious, most dishonorable, without reservation!”

    Clearly, you have once again violated the stated “Comment and Content Policy” of this blog, in reality with your projection of self! Uncanny!! Well done, Mr Hitchcock!!!

  26. York, I understand your point, but here we go again.

    Following is an excerpt from Steven Ertelt’s article today at Life News:

    White House: Colleges Also Forced to Institute HHS Mandate

    The White House announced today that colleges and universities will also be forced to join religious employers in instituting the new HHS mandate that requires them to provide coverage for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.

    The Health and Human Services Department released information Friday afternoon saying college student health care plans will be treated like employees’ plans — making them subject to the mandate the Obama administration put in place that has upset pro-life groups for its violation of religious liberties.

    The decision means college students — who already get abortions at the highest rate compared with women in other age categories, will be able to get free birth control pills, Plan B pills and the ella drug that causes early-term abortions days after conception.

    The nation’s biggest abortion business is already applauding the decision, as it means insurance companies will pay for drugs Planned Parenthood dispenses, providing a taxpayer-funded windfall for the abortion giant…

  27. ropelight says:
    March 16, 2012 at 19:22

    York, I understand your point, but here we go again.

    Rope, you have a point. My Bad. We haven’t seen a 1,000 comment thread yet and we’re past halfway with this being 530. My error, keep up the good fight. And let me throw kero, gas, and napalm on this pyre. Obama has certainly broke his oath of orifice and should be immediately removed from office along with Pelosi and Reid for FLAGRANTLY usurping power of the first Amendment in passing and signing this Bill. A 5th grader could point it out because none of the three are smarter than he or she

  28. One would think that those concerned about reducing abortion would welcome mandating health insurers cover contraception, wouldn’t one?

    Thus, religious institutions, like the Roman Catholic Church, should abandon their anachronistic doctrine against birth control, for the sake of reducing a much worse scourge, abortion. Go figure!

  29. Wagonwheel says:
    March 16, 2012 at 17:25 (Edit)

    “Multiple people called for you to be banned for your threats and false accusations of criminality.” (quoting me)

    I don’t believe you, Mr Hitchcock. Prove it! Need I remind you that this is not your blog. You seem to forget that at times.

    First of all, I don’t have to prove it. We know it’s true. Have you ever heard of “cc” in regards to emails? I sure have. Multiple people received and responded to emails calling for your banning. They used “reply all”. Have you heard of that? I sure have.

    Second of all, I have never claimed this is my blog. Even that single sentence you pulled out of my comment implicitly declared someone else to be the owner of this blog. The fact remains that multiple people called for your banishment as a result of your directly threatening someone and blatantly accusing another of a Federal Crime. And all because you hated what they were saying and were trying to use a typically radical Leftist scheme to SHUT THEM UP.

    You have called for the Editor to cut me off on this site and multiple times on CSPT because you didn’t like what I had to say. You’re all for censorship if people are saying things that you don’t like, such as Barack Hussein Obama is the absolutely most corrupt President the US has ever had, and the least willing to obey the US Constitution in the 236 years the US has been in existence, and 2nd place is not even close (and there’s a race between previous Democrat Presidents for that position).

  30. One would think that those concerned with reducing abortions would call sluts sluts and call whores whores, thereby stigmatizing floozies as they were from the 12th century until the 1950s! And it worked back then, too!

    If people want to be immoral, they should be forced to face the consequences of their immorality instead of just killing off babies to avoid the consequences of their immorality, thus amplifying their immorality!

    The End Times Prophecy is real, people. “Just like the days of Sodom and Gomorrah” are sitting with us right here in the last bastion of Freedom, the US of A! And the radical Leftists are cheerleading a further tanking into Sodom and Gomorrah every single day. For example, I give you Sandra Fluck.

  31. The Bible explicitly says if you cannot control yourself, marry the woman!

    If you cannot control yourself, and you refuse to get married, you are sinning against Providence, you are sinning against yourself, you are sinning against the woman.

    If you choose to select abortion to get rid of the “problem” caused by your sins, you are sinning against Providence, you are sinning against, yourself, you are sinning against the woman, and you are sinning against the innocent child you are murdering.

    And all those sins come as a result of moral depravity, which is itself a sin. And today’s society is morally depraved, thus a sinful society, just like Sodom and Gomorrah. And just like the Bible declared it would be in the Last Days.

    So saith the LORD, GOD ALMIGHTY.

  32. Wagonwheel says:
    March 16, 2012 at 20:59

    One would think that those concerned about reducing abortion would welcome mandating health insurers cover contraception, wouldn’t one?

    Thus, religious institutions, like the Roman Catholic Church, should abandon their anachronistic doctrine against birth control, for the sake of reducing a much worse scourge, abortion. Go figure!

    So Wagonwheel wants Religious Institutions to give up their Granted First Amendment Rights of “Congress shall make no law respecting …. (religion)…. prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” to please you and others with your mind set. Let’s try this, Dover AFB has run out of room to house the airmen. They go to your house and demand, no take your house to have a place for the Airmen. How does that sound. And on top of that, they throw you out and do not reimburse you. Or maybe the Police should come to your house, force their way in and search the house for anything illegal, take it, and arrest you. Would those two things be OK and you should just capitulate and let it happen.

  33. The latest from Sandra Fluke:

    “Last month, students from several Catholic universities gathered to send a message to the nation that contraception is basic health care. I was among them, and I was proud to share the stories of my friends at Georgetown Law who have suffered dire medical consequences because our student insurance does not cover contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

    I joined these students in speaking at a media event because I believe that stories of how real women are affected are the most powerful argument for access to affordable, quality reproductive health care services.

    I also joined these students because now is a critical time to raise this issue in our public consciousness.

    Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance plans without co-pays or deductibles. If appropriately implemented, this important law will finally guarantee women access to contraception, regardless of the religious affiliation of their workplace or school.

    By now, many have heard the stories I wanted to share thanks to the congressional leaders and members of the media who have supported me and millions of women in speaking out.

    Because we spoke so loudly, opponents of reproductive health access demonized and smeared me and others on the public airwaves. These smears are obvious attempts to distract from meaningful policy discussions and to silence women’s voices regarding their own health care.

    These attempts to silence women and the men who support them have clearly failed. I know this because I have received so many messages of support from across the country – women and men speaking out because they agree that contraception needs to be treated as a basic health care service.

    Who are these supporters?

    They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who need contraception to prevent cysts from growing on their ovaries, which if unaddressed can lead to infertility and deadly ovarian cancer. They are sexual assault victims, who need contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

    They are Catholic women, who see no conflict between their social justice -based faith and family planning. They are new moms, whose doctors fear that another pregnancy too soon could jeopardize the mother’s health and the potential child’s health too. They are mothers and grandmothers who remember all too well what it was like to be called names decades ago, when they were fighting for a job, for health care benefits, for equality.

    They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who know that without access to contraception, the women they care about can face unfair obstacles to participating in public life. And yes, they are young women of all income levels, races, classes and ethnicities who need access to contraception to control their reproduction, pursue their education and career goals and prevent unintended pregnancy. And they will not be silenced.

    These women know how expensive birth control pills can be, with or without insurance coverage. For a single mother with kids, a woman making minimum wage, or a student living on loans, a high monthly co-pay could be the difference between buying contraception or one week of groceries.

    And imagine the financial burden of unplanned pregnancy and raising a child. For women without insurance coverage or with insurance that doesn’t cover contraception, the costs create a significant financial burden.

    Many women cannot medically use the least expensive types of contraception. As a result, many women, especially those 18 to 34 who have the most trouble affording contraception, simply go without. They face any number of medical risks as well as unintended pregnancy – all of which damage their productivity and the health of their families.

    Most recently, certain political commentators have started spreading misinformation about the underlying government regulation we are discussing. To be clear, through programs such as Medicaid, the government already does and should fund contraception coverage for the poorest women in our country.

    But, despite the misinformation being spread, the regulation under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government funding: It is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities that are financed by individual workers, students and their families – not taxpayers.

    I am talking about women who, despite paying their own premiums, cannot obtain coverage of contraception on their private insurance, even when their employer or university contributes nothing to that insurance.

    Restricting access to such a basic health care service, which 99% of sexually experienced American women have used and 62% of American women are using right now, is out of touch with public sentiment. In fact, more than 60% of Americans support this regulation and affordable access to contraception, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

    Attacking me and women who use contraception by calling us prostitutes and worse cannot silence us.

    I am proud to stand with the millions of women and men who recognize that our government should legislate according to the reality of our lives – not for ideology.

    Sandra Fluke is a third-year law student at Georgetown University Law Center, and has served as president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

  34. “Would those two things be OK and you should just capitulate and let it happen.”

    No, I don’t think either of your examples would be OK. But neither is comparable to covering contraceptives in a health insurance plan.

    The idea is to make contraceptives easily available in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies thus minimizing abortions, and to treat certain illnesses specific to women. As I said before, I don’t think that religious doctrine should be used interfere with this provision, except in the case where the religious institution itself is the employer. Georgetown University is not a religious institution, it is a University.

  35. Wagonwheel says:
    March 16, 2012 at 21:56

    “Would those two things be OK and you should just capitulate and let it happen.”

    No, I don’t think either of your examples would be OK. But neither is comparable to covering contraceptives in a health insurance plan.

    The idea is to make contraceptives easily available in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies thus minimizing abortions, and to treat certain illnesses specific to women. As I said before, I don’t think that religious doctrine should be used interfere with this provision, except in the case where the religious institution itself is the employer. Georgetown University is not a religious institution, it is a University.

    I think I should have clarified that by saying those two incidents are for NATIONAL SECURITY when no threat exists.

    Or basically you’re only for upholding some amendments, but not others. That’s pretty selective thinking on your part. But I guess with Progressives, you have Progressed beyond following those silly amendments. I know, they’re inconvenient and just get in the way of “PROGRESS”.

  36. And that is exactly the point, Yorkie. Democrats have little use for the actual words of the US Constitution. They prefer to make it up as they go along. No Rule of Law, just Rule of Man. Dictatorship is the end-result of Democrat actions. Not the absolutely false “dictatorship” unhinged Leftists claim where an elected Governor signs into Law a Constitutional bill that was passed by the elected Legislature. But a true dictatorship where a President ignores Congress, the Constitutionally provided Law-making body, to pass his own Laws, which are opposed by the majority of the citizens and also absolutely contrary to the Constitution (which he has been ignoring since Day 1).

  37. Many of the founders were Deists, and that is a fact, one of many which Mr Hitchcock chooses to ignore, in favor of his myths.

    For example, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and George Washington.

    And speaking of the Constitution, the word “God” appears how many times? Answer: Not once!

    Let us put these Hitchcock false contentions to bed once and for all, folks!!!

    PS: Mr Hitchcock obviously favors some sort of a Christian Despotism for America, when his own behavior on this blog hardly merits even the title Christian, instead baring his own false testimony! Actions indeed do speak louder than words, Mr Hitchcock, a theme of Christ’s message via his apostles. Pay attention John Hitchcock:

    James 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it? 17 So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself.

    James 3:13 Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct he should show his works done in the gentleness that wisdom brings.

    James 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, accommodating, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial, and not hypocritical.

    1 Timothy 4:12 Let no one look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in your speech, conduct, love, faithfulness, and purity.

  38. Why does every agnostic and athiest on this blog find they need to quote scripture to us? Do they believe themselves “clever” quoting something they neither believe in nor comprehend the meaning of?

  39. Hoagie, I would say that neither you nor Mr Hitchcock “believe in or comprehend the meaning” of Christ’s message, according to what I see re yours and his behaviors on this blog.

    You also may not know that I spent the better part of my youth, up into my early 20′s, very close to the Church as a practicing, evangelical Christian. Even though I now am an agnostic, I continue to greatly value much of the wisdom of the message of Christ, of whose life’s works I remain in great admiration to this day.

    What is your objection to the passages I chose to quote, which deal with the theme that actions speak louder than words? I would think that you would subscribe to this message at least as well as I do, maybe even moreso!

  40. Wagonwheel wrote:

    One would think that those concerned about reducing abortion would welcome mandating health insurers cover contraception, wouldn’t one?

    Thus, religious institutions, like the Roman Catholic Church, should abandon their anachronistic doctrine against birth control, for the sake of reducing a much worse scourge, abortion. Go figure!

    With this one comment, you have thoroughly identified the intellectual problem you face. You see this as a political decision, and are trying to frame it on what you see as practicality. The Church is not a political institution, nor one which bases its decisions on secular notions of practicality. Rather, the Church bases its decisions on scripture and on faith.

    Saint Thomas Aquinas put it best: “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

  41. “The Church is not a political institution, ….”

    Please, Mr Editor, you cannot be serious!

    The Church doctrine which opposes contraception in order to populate the earth with Roman Catholics is about as political as can be.

    In my view, many of these Church doctrines are political, having nothing to do with faith, but everything to do with furthering the political goal of expanding the Church to every corner of the earth. In my mind, this is no different from conquering peoples and their lands in order to expand political influence and control.

    The Vatican is to the Church exactly what Washington DC is to America. Both are political capitals!

    Moreover, the Church seeks to politicize the contraception issue just as the GOP seeks to politicize the rising price of gasoline.

    Generally speaking, politics “is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions”.

    The Roman Catholic Church is indeed a group of people attempting to make collective decisions.

  42. Wagonwheel wrote:

    The idea is to make contraceptives easily available in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies thus minimizing abortions, and to treat certain illnesses specific to women.

    if “(t)he idea is to make contraceptives easily available,” then that mission was accomplished before this attempt by the Administration to try to ram their beliefs down the throat of the Church. Where in this country is contraception not easily available?

    As I said before, I don’t think that religious doctrine should be used interfere with this provision, except in the case where the religious institution itself is the employer. Georgetown University is not a religious institution, it is a University.

    From the Georgetown website:

    Georgetown University is one of the world’s leading academic and research institutions, offering a unique educational experience that prepares the next generation of global citizens to lead and make a difference in the world. We are a vibrant community of exceptional students, faculty, alumni and professionals dedicated to real-world applications of our research, scholarship, faith and service.

    Established in 1789, Georgetown is the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university. Drawing upon this legacy, we provide students with a world-class learning experience focused on educating the whole person through exposure to different faiths, cultures and beliefs. With our Jesuit values and location in Washington, D.C., Georgetown offers students a distinct opportunity to learn, experience and understand more about the world.

    Georgetown University is a private school, owned by the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), part of the Catholic Church. Jesuit values are the specifically stated foundation of the university.

    Education after high school is not mandatory in this country. Georgetown is not a public school. If a student disagrees with Georgetown’s particular mission and values, or does not like the fact that Georgetown does not include contraception as part of its health plan, the student is perfectly free to attend another college.

    Georgetown’s School of Law is regarded as one of the top law schools in the United States. If Sandra Fluke had the undergraduate grades and LSAT score to be accepted into Georgetown, then Georgetown was not her only option.

    This is a big country, with room for all sorts of ideologies, beliefs and faiths. Why is it that you see it as so necessary that you have to use the power of government to force your views on everyone else? That, you see, is the difference. Conservatives would not force those institutions, colleges, organizations and businesses which believe it would be better to include contraceptive coverage in their health care plans to drop such coverage. If that’s what they want to do, that’s fine with me, and I daresay that it would be fine with all of the other conservative regulars here. You, on the other hand, would use the power of government to compel even those institutions, colleges, organizations and businesses which believe that contraceptive coverage should not be included in their health care plans, for whatever reasons they have, to act against their own beliefs. We believe that, in a situation in which no one’s constitutional rights are being violated, people should be free to believe and behave as they choose; you, on the other hand, would use the power of government to comp those who believe differently than you do to behave as you choose, not as they would choose.

    This is, from not just you, but many of our friends on the left, hardly a new thing. You believe that compact fluorescent light bulbs are somehow better for us all, so while conservatives are perfectly happy to let anyone who wants to use CFL bulbs buy them, you want to use the power of government to keep people who prefer incandescents from being able to buy them. You believe that too much salt or trans-fat are harmful for people’s health, so while conservatives are perfectly happy to allow people to use less salt or trans-fat in their cooking, liberals want to mandate that restaurants reduce these things. You believe that fossil fuel use is a bad thing, so while conservatives are perfectly happy to allow people to buy the Chevy Dolt if they wish, you want to use the power of government to tax away everybody’s money to give to people who will buy the Dolt. You believe that we have to get away from fossil fuels, so while conservatives are perfectly willing to let people invest in solar panels or wind power generators, you want to tax away everybody’s money to subsidize people who go solar, winding up with great deals like Solyndra. You believe that having health insurance is a good thing, as do conservatives, and conservatives are perfectly happy to allow people to buy health insurace — and most of us do — but you think that, by Gaia, everybody will buy health insurance, and we’ll use the power of government to force compliance. Liberalism in the United States, which had a very libertarian bent just a few decades ago, is now the movement of government control, yet somehow, some way, y’all are surprised when some people actually resist your efforts at control.

  43. “Hoagie, I would say that neither you nor Mr Hitchcock “believe in or comprehend the meaning” of Christ’s message, according to what I see re yours and his behaviors on this blog.”

    Really? Well, I guess you’re entitled to your opinion. So I guess I have to assume you question Mr. Hitchcock and my Christian credentials and by extention our compassion annd very humanity because you percieve us as an uncontrolable conservative cabal. Okay, I can see why a guy in your position would feel threatened by guys like us who put the Word of God above that of some government. I would be interested in knowing what caused an Evangelical Christian to reject the Word and turn to the state for salvation. Must have been a rough trip. BTW, by this time you should know just how I interpret and comprehend the meaning of Christ’s message by my actions in tithing, my community contributions both in time and money and my contributions at the Club for the poor and elderly. What have you done for humanity lately beside demand more from government?

    Then you ask: “What is your objection to the passages I chose to quote, which deal with the theme that actions speak louder than words? I would think that you would subscribe to this message at least as well as I do, maybe even moreso!”

    I have no objection to the passages per se, just an agnostic quoting them to us and I do believe my last sentence above explains how I subscribe to the Message. You see, when an agnostic quotes the bible he wealds it as a sword to cut the soul of the Christian knowing full well none of us can live up to the Word. But fear not! We too know we will never be perfect. At least as not nearly perfect as those compassionate leftists who see an all powerful goverment as the best chance for mankind. We all know how well that’s worked out in the past.

    “The Church doctrine which opposes contraception in order to populate the earth with Roman Catholics is about as political as can be.”

    Those doctrines you call political were around long before our government was. It’s lefists who insist upon making long standing religious doctrine “political” in their efforts to break the church and recruit more worshippers at the Alter of The State.

  44. Wagonwheel wrote:

    “The Church is not a political institution, ….”

    Please, Mr Editor, you cannot be serious!

    The Church doctrine which opposes contraception in order to populate the earth with Roman Catholics is about as political as can be.

    In my view, many of these Church doctrines are political, having nothing to do with faith, but everything to do with furthering the political goal of expanding the Church to every corner of the earth. In my mind, this is no different from conquering peoples and their lands in order to expand political influence and control.

    That’s exactly right: in your view. The trouble is that you don’t even recognize the difference between religion and politics. The Church, of course, has no armies, and can invade no lands, and can advance only through the power of persuasion.

    The Vatican is to the Church exactly what Washington DC is to America. Both are political capitals!

    Oh, true, true! Washington, DC, is the capital of the United States, and has, in its government the legal authority and the police power to enforce its decisions over the 3.79 million square miles of United States territory; the Vatican is the political capital, with governing authority, over the 110 acres of Vatican City.

    Moreover, the Church seeks to politicize the contraception issue just as the GOP seeks to politicize the rising price of gasoline.

    And to what end do you believe that the Church is seeking to politicize the contraception issue? Is the Church trying to make contraception illegal? Is the Church seeking to prohibit those institutions which wish to include contraception coverage in their insurance plans from doing so? Or is the Church simply seeking to protect its religious freedom?

    Generally speaking, politics “is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions”.

    The Roman Catholic Church is indeed a group of people attempting to make collective decisions.

    What collective decision would that be? The Church seeks to persuade people not to use artificial contraception — not very successfully, it would seem — but I have yet to see anything, from any Church organization, or from any serious individual, which would seek to prohibit the use of contraception in this country. You, on the other hand, seek to force religiously affiliated institutions, and businesses which might not have decided that they wish to provide contraception, and business owners who may or may not be Catholic, or who may or may not believe that artificial contraception is wrong, to pay for it anyway. The power of the Church is through prayer and persuasion; the power of government is through the police. Some of us can see a real difference there!

  45. John Hitchcock says:
    March 16, 2012 at 22:57

    And that is exactly the point, Yorkie. Democrats have little use for the actual words of the US Constitution. They prefer to make it up as they go along. No Rule of Law, just Rule of Man. Dictatorship is the end-result of Democrat actions. Not the absolutely false “dictatorship” unhinged Leftists claim where an elected Governor signs into Law a Constitutional bill that was passed by the elected Legislature. But a true dictatorship where a President ignores Congress, the Constitutionally provided Law-making body, to pass his own Laws, which are opposed by the majority of the citizens and also absolutely contrary to the Constitution (which he has been ignoring since Day 1).

    You mean like we have now.

  46. “Why is it that you see it as so necessary that you have to use the power of government to force your views on everyone else? “

    This is exactly what you and many of your Conservative friends do, Mr Editor, but you don’t understand the ramifications, except that your wishes must be satisfied.

    Take for example your views on the operations of the free market, in which case you are completely against government regulations. In other words, instead of being in favor of the power of a representative government operating on democratic principles, you are in favor of the power of the corporations and others to operate as they please. Experience, centuries of it, has shown that this approach does not work, as has experience shown the opposite, that an overly restrictive government stifles growth. We need to be somewhere in the middle between these extremes. So this leaves us with the need to work out compromise solutions, a term that you Republicans wish to remove from your political dictionary. So what good for all the people can come from this attitude of today’s Righties and libertarians? I don’t see much.

    And concerning government regulations on the list of those to which you object, like light bulbs, like trans-fats, like fossil fuels, like even seat belts, all these issues can impact on other people if not handled properly. You appear not to care about that. Nevertheless, I say that it is the proper role of government to have a role in determining these needed regulations.

    I understand that you view regulations to be taking away your freedoms, yet you appear unwilling to consider the impacts of no regulation on other people, or even to consider the big picture, if we are unwilling to do what is best for society as a whole.

    The bottom line is that if we wish to be a part of an orderly society, there cannot be unlimited absolute freedom for each individual. Instead, we must advance as a united people by making wise decisions about limits.

    Since we have to have limits, therefore we depend on our representative government acting on behalf of all the people, applying democratic principles to set our limits.

    Mr Editor, your libertarian instincts are frequently not in touch with the realities of living with a collection of people having differing views but who wish to move forward together. Thus, we need a mechanism to govern ourselves, and that mechanism is to put our trust in representative government, not in a minority who think their narrow and unrealistic ideology must be followed, no questions or negotiations needed.

    I think those on the Right do not understand this basic for governing effectively which has evolved over many centuries, led in the last few centuries by our very own representative government which, due to the recent emergence of the extreme Right in America, has our government becoming dysfunctional, unable to act for the benefit of the people as a whole.

    Fortunately for us, we now have a President who understands this unfortunate, lethal dynamic by the Right, and has been effective in turning the ship of state back on a course consistent with our base Christian culture, which is one reason why you Righties have developed an obvious hatred for the man, not realizing how far off-base your current right wing ideology is trying to take us.

    This extreme partisan divide is evidence of our impending collapse unless most of us are willing to get back together again.

    I think President Obama realizes this, which is why we need him to continue to lead us for a second term, in order to continue his efforts to bring us back together as a nation as we work out compromise solutions in order to move forward on the otherwise culture ending issues if we ignore them. On the other side, I see only arbitrary efforts to further divide us.

  47. “And to what end do you believe that the Church is seeking to politicize the contraception issue? Is the Church trying to make contraception illegal? Is the Church seeking to prohibit those institutions which wish to include contraception coverage in their insurance plans from doing so? Or is the Church simply seeking to protect its religious freedom?”

    Yes, for a Roman Catholic, contraception is “illegal”, worthy of a mortal sin, which if unconfessed jeopardizes one’s entry into paradise, instead in line for punishment by fire in hell.

    Isn’t this silliness true, Mr Editor? Please correct me if necessary.

    Regarding religious freedom, of course the Church is entitled to it. However, the Church is not entitled to restrict a non-Catholic employee from being covered by insurance for his/her contraception.

    What may be freedom of choice for the Church may not be freedom of choice for certain individuals, therefore it is imperative for the Church to relent.

    And one must understand, and not forget, that Church doctrine is man made, just like any law or regulation, therefore discussion and compromise for resolution is in order. Oh wait, the Church does not compromise – there is the flaw! Nor does today’s American right wing.

  48. “You mean like we have now.”

    I don’t agree at all, Yorkshire, as I have often stated on here. Again, the Constitution is NOT an absolutist document, like the Bible as well is not.

    Both are man made, therefore subject to interpretation in the context in which they presently exist. To think otherwise is both foolish and wrong, in my view.

  49. I was just reading Perry’s March 17, 2012 at 12:09 comment, and the justificatory language he uses, which reveals his fundamental assumptions perfectly well. It explains why there is ultimately no reasoning your way to an accommodation with his moral kind.

    Again it’s not really a reciprocal relationship he’s demanding. If you can live without Mr X perfectly well, but Mr X cannot live without you; if Mr. X wants what you produce, but you have no need or desire for what Mr X claims to be peddling, then wherein lies the rationale for any kind of “relationship” other than the most purely formal? Or for any kind of accession to the “moral necessity” of a coerced interpersonal “investment” which can only redound negatively upon the one granting the gift?

    “… concerning government regulations … light bulbs, like trans-fats, like fossil fuels, like even seat belts, all … can impact on other people if not handled properly … if we are unwilling to do what is best for society as a whole. … we must advance as a united people … in touch with the realities of living with a collection of people having differing views but who wish to move forward together. … President Obama realizes this, which is why we need him to continue to lead us for a second term, in order to continue his efforts to bring us back togetherto move forward on the otherwise culture ending issues …”

    (Emphases added)

    In other words as I have said at least twice before, what we witness is a cynical, barely sublimated call for a program of “government management of all your life options”. It takes place as a game of compensatory “musical chairs” (Oh sorry I had to take your chair away!) played out within a suffocating room sans exit, a game that promises to go on forever and ever, till heat-death us do part … or until they have exhausted your resources … Amen.

    Perry’s “intellectual” view of human “society” then, is Hobbsean in its fallacious historical understanding; utilitarian, in its inchoate view of morality and politics; collective, in its understanding of philosophical anthropology; and ultimately, totalitarian in its governing principles.

    Emotionally it is the outgrowth of a man or a kind of man who is a product of some state’s grace and abundance and who recognizes his dependency upon that state for his very existence. For those of us who can trace our heritage out, and who know how and where our ancestors obtained their material existences which led to ourselves, independent of any government redistribution of “social wealth”, Perry’s filial affection for what is just a collection of bureaus inhabited by hirelings tasked to do specific things, is incomprehensible.

    But he has fashioned this instrumental work of man, into the fount of life.

    For Perry, it is become, His father, who art in Washington, hallowed be the collective. Perry would have, Its kingdom come, and its will be done; in private life as well as in public. He would have it, Give him this day, Perry’s daily check, and to, authorize the morally incontinent their debts against others, as Perry would have his debts picked up too. He would finally have it, Lead us all into thralldom so as to deliver Perry from the evil of self-responsibility.

    John Rawls, as I mentioned before, stupefyingly styled our fundamental social relation predicate, as being a categorical and unconditional “commitment to share each others’ fate”.

    I don’t know where he picked that masochistically suicidal shit up, but the disease he had certainly seems to be widespread among a certain type of denizen of this republic. Whether the disease is a sincere belief i.e., an internalized infection, or just rhetoric deployed by a cynical kind of dependent organism to get what it wants from a more materially productive and self-reliant kind of organism, may be beside the point.

    As a predicate, it positions the infected one, ultimately anyway, as an enemy of both liberty, and of the individual as the locus of moral, and in fact all really meaningful, human activity.

  50. WW wrote:

    “And to what end do you believe that the Church is seeking to politicize the contraception issue? Is the Church trying to make contraception illegal? Is the Church seeking to prohibit those institutions which wish to include contraception coverage in their insurance plans from doing so? Or is the Church simply seeking to protect its religious freedom?”

    Yes, for a Roman Catholic, contraception is “illegal”, worthy of a mortal sin, which if unconfessed jeopardizes one’s entry into paradise, instead in line for punishment by fire in hell.

    Isn’t this silliness true, Mr Editor? Please correct me if necessary.

    Yes, you are correct: you are engaging in silliness.

    “Illegal” means against the law, something for which the police can arrest you. If a Catholic chooses to accept the teachings of the Church, then he may feel constrained to obey them. But neither the Pope, nor any of the bishops, nor your parish priest can come and arrest you for using contraception. None of those fine gentlemen can force you to be Catholic, or Christian, or anything else; it is something you get to choose freely.

    Regarding religious freedom, of course the Church is entitled to it. However, the Church is not entitled to restrict a non-Catholic employee from being covered by insurance for his/her contraception.

    What may be freedom of choice for the Church may not be freedom of choice for certain individuals, therefore it is imperative for the Church to relent.

    The Church can certainly not tell a non-Catholic — or Catholic, for that matter — employee that he may not use contraception, under legal penalty. But the Church not having that authority does not mean that the Church must provide insurance which provides something the Church finds immoral. The Church not providing contraception does not mean that the individual lacks the freedom to use contraception.

    But, of course, your real motive, as has been suggested all along, is that you want to force the Church to relent, to impose secular law upon the Church.

  51. But, of course, your real motive, as has been suggested all along, is that you want to force the Church to relent, to impose secular law upon the Church.

    And that right there is the point. Radical Leftists, as represented by the Socialist Wagonwheel and the Socialist leadership of the National Democrat Party, absolutely refuse to live by the Law of the Land, which states the Government cannot restrict Religious Freedom (found in the absolute very first Amendment to the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, over and above the Presidency and the US Senate and all extra-Constitutional bureaucracies unconstitutionally created).

  52. “Second of all, I have never claimed this is my blog. Even that single sentence you pulled out of my comment implicitly declared someone else to be the owner of this blog.”

    And yet, Mr Hitchcock, you feel you have a right to delete comments regardless of whoever posted the thread. This is in contradiction to your earlier statements.

    If it’s not your blog, why are you free to delete whoever you disagree with?

  53. [same comment deleted twice as being repetitiously repetitive and redundantly redundant, being full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing -- JH]

  54. Because there is still some interest in this thread — though we’ve pretty much reached the beating a dead horse stage — I have advanced the timestamp on this post so that comments will remain open until 1800 on Tuesday, March 20th.

  55. If it’s not your blog, why are you free to delete whoever you disagree with?

    Wagonwheel, that is a straw man, not what you claimed. PIATOR very specifically set up a false premise (which is necessary with straw men) in order to attempt to burn it down. But he failed, even then.

    PIATOR, I am free to delete that which I determine deletable by way of my authority as an ADMINISTRATOR on this site. I have that ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY do do so. As far as “delet[ing] whoever [I] disagree with” (very bad grammatical form, that sentence), no person who values honesty and integrity would ever claim I do that. Ever.

    The Editor warned Wagonwheel about having a tie with me. It’s like a race with a freight train where you tie me (the freight train). I alluded to that race, and in my allusion, you can see I put Wagonwheel on a fully electric moped. The results of that tie are not pretty. I win at no cost to me at all (except for that troublesome paperwork). With you, you’re racing the freight train on one leg and a pair of crutches you borrowed from Yorkie. You’re very much less likely to tie that freight train (me), and the end result will be no better than if Wagonwheel tied that freight train (me).

  56. “As far as “delet[ing] whoever [I] disagree with” (very bad grammatical form, that sentence), no person who values honesty and integrity would ever claim I do that. Ever.”

    Your deletion of my post at March 17, 2012 at 15:54 demonstrates you are lying.

  57. Mr Editor, your comments policy claims that “I always support the free expression of ideas”.

    Why are you allowing Mr Hitchcock to delete whatever he arbitrarily chooses?

  58. Why are you allowing Mr Hitchcock to delete whatever he arbitrarily chooses?

    Wagonwheel, there is another example of a straw man argument at work. PIATOR continues to set up false premises in order to torch them. PIATOR is claiming a lie to be understood as a fact, in order to ask a question based on the lie, for benefit of supposedly winning an argument, based on PIATOR’s dishonorable debating schemes. That is a straw man, not what you claimed the Editor was producing.

  59. “Wagonwheel, there is another example of a straw man argument at work. PIATOR continues to set up false premises in order to torch them. ”

    Uh-huh.

    In that case, cite the part of the Comments policy you used to justify deleting my post at March 17, 2012 at 15:54.

    Mr Editor, why are you allowing Mr Hitchcock to delete whatever he arbitrarily chooses?

  60. Wagonwheel says:
    March 17, 2012 at 13:06 (Edit)

    “You mean like we have now.”

    I don’t agree at all, Yorkshire, as I have often stated on here. Again, the Constitution is NOT an absolutist document, like the Bible as well is not.

    Both are man made, therefore subject to interpretation in the context in which they presently exist. To think otherwise is both foolish and wrong, in my view.
    ————–

    Wagonwheel says:
    March 16, 2012 at 20:59

    One would think that those concerned about reducing abortion would welcome mandating health insurers cover contraception, wouldn’t one?

    Thus, religious institutions, like the Roman Catholic Church, should abandon their anachronistic doctrine against birth control, for the sake of reducing a much worse scourge, abortion. Go figure!

    (So I reponded with this):

    So Wagonwheel wants Religious Institutions to give up their Granted First Amendment Rights of “Congress shall make no law respecting …. (religion)…. prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” to please you and others with your mind set. Let’s try this, Dover AFB has run out of room to house the airmen. They go to your house and demand, no take your house to have a place for the Airmen. How does that sound. And on top of that, they throw you out and do not reimburse you. Or maybe the Police should come to your house, force their way in and search the house for anything illegal, take it, and arrest you. Would those two things be OK and you should just capitulate and let it happen.

    And WW responded with this:

    Wagonwheel says:

    March 16, 2012 at 21:56 (Edit)

    “Would those two things be OK and you should just capitulate and let it happen.”

    No, I don’t think either of your examples would be OK. But neither is comparable to covering contraceptives in a health insurance plan.

    The idea is to make contraceptives easily available in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies thus minimizing abortions, and to treat certain illnesses specific to women. As I said before, I don’t think that religious doctrine should be used interfere with this provision, except in the case where the religious institution itself is the employer. Georgetown University is not a religious institution, it is a University.
    —————————

    Now what I presented to WW were two situations covered by the 3rd and 4th Amendments:

    Amendment 3 – Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
    ——————————————————————————–

    Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    And WW responded thus:
    No, I don’t think either of your examples would be OK. But neither is comparable to covering contraceptives in a health insurance plan

    So it appears WW takes the 3rd and 4th Amendments as absolutes, but not the first. As WW is a TRUE Progressive, the Constitution can mean anything you want it to mean at that moment. It’s the Progressives view that the Constitution is a “Living Document” and it means different things to different people depending on the alignment of the Sun, the Stars and the Moon, and which side of the bed they get up on.

  61. Actually, the Third Amendment is not written in absolutist language: note the “but in a manner to be prescribed by law” ending. Nor is the Fourth Amendment written in absolutist terms: words like “reasonable” and “probable” are qualitative adjectives, and thus are subject to disagreement as to their meaning. The First and Second Amendments leave no such wiggle room.

  62. Editor says:
    March 17, 2012 at 20:29 (Edit)

    Actually, the Third Amendment is not written in absolutist language: note the “but in a manner to be prescribed by law” ending. Nor is the Fourth Amendment written in absolutist terms: words like “reasonable” and “probable” are qualitative adjectives, and thus are subject to disagreement as to their meaning. The First and Second Amendments leave no such wiggle room.

    The 3rd was based on what the Brits did to ordinary citizens, and a lot of cases on the 4th must be done in precise terms.

  63. DNW, thi spost : DNW says:
    March 17, 2012 at 13:46

    Is one of the best I’ve ever seen. Thank you. I am not able to do justice as you.

  64. Did I just read Elle Macfearson “loves Obama, I’m a socialist what would you expect?” Yeah, another liberal liar. She’s worth 55 million but she’s a “socialist”. How about we Nationalize her wealth, Wagonwheels wealth and Anna Novas, then let’s see who the socialists are? I say everyone who is a liberal should be forced to forfeit their money to the government. Who’s with me? Let’s make it a campaign slogan.

  65. Hoagie wrote:

    Did I just read Elle Macfearson “loves Obama, I’m a socialist what would you expect?” Yeah, another liberal liar. She’s worth 55 million but she’s a “socialist”. How about we Nationalize her wealth, Wagonwheels wealth and Anna Novas, then let’s see who the socialists are? I say everyone who is a liberal should be forced to forfeit their money to the government. Who’s with me? Let’s make it a campaign slogan.

    The very lovely Miss MacPherson is an Australian by birth, who lives in London. She was reared in the “soft socialism” of Australia, and still lives in that system in the United Kingdom. She has had a succession of very wealthy boyfriends, as well as having made millions herself, not only as a model, but with a successful lingerie line. Perhaps it’s easier to be a socialist when things just flow to you due to your looks.

  66. I note PIATOR has chosen not to even attempt to try to push his false meme that I supposedly slandered a slut by calling her a slut in the thread where the Editor said it belongs, despite the Editor and myself repeatedly deleting his attempted thread-jacks all over all the other threads, and the Editor specifically pointing to this thread where PIATOR can falsely accuse me of slandering a slut by calling her a slut, and can falsely accuse me of attempting to hide the fact that I called a slut a slut, thereby not slandering a slut by calling her a slut. (And when it’s in writing, it would be a libel charge, but would still be a false libel charge which would never hold up in any Court of Law where “Libel” is held to its proper standard and something called “Discovery” is used against the Plaintiff, nonetheless.)

  67. Here’s the real kicker to all those fools who hate absolutes. (That would include all Socialists, such as PIATOR and Wagonwheel): Chastity is an absolute term. If a person is not a virgin and has not been married, that person is, by definition, not chaste. If a person has engaged in activities which would remove the possibility of virginity while not being married or outside of marriage in any way, that person is, by definition, not chaste.

    Chastity is an absolute term. Sluttiness is a relative term. I called an unchaste woman a slut. By the absolute term, Sandra Fluck is unchaste. Therefore, by the relative term, Sandra Fluck is, indeed, a slut. There is no slander, and there is no libel. By her not fitting in the absolute framework, she, definitionally, fits within the relative term. Thus neither slander nor libel fit, within the framework of the Law. And my Honor remains fully intact, as has always been the case.

  68. And your exact evidence that Sandra Fluke is a “slut” is exactly what, Mr Hitchcock.

    You haven’t any!!! Moreover, your straw man fallacy is just that, a fallacy, a fallacy from a false prophet!

    I am simply amazed that our Editor would give you license to commit libel, to bear false witness, and to violate his claim to honor free speech, all on his blog. It’s all on him too!!!

  69. I am simply amazed that the Editor has given you your own blog despite your continued nastiness towards him (and others) on here and back at CSPT!

  70. Why is it that those who claim to be anti-absolutist in their intellectual outlook, are invariably either open or closet totalitarians in their political views?

    How do they “justify” it? The answer of course, is found in the political “progressive’s”, metaphysics of love [in the non-romantic sense] and meaning.

    If we hadn’t been through it all many times before, at least in bits and pieces, it would make a decent post for John’s blog.

  71. “And your exact evidence that Sandra Fluke is a “slut” is exactly what, Mr Hitchcock.”

    Well, let’s see. She has pronounced her proclivity toward sexual activity, she’s not married and she wants others to pay for her contraception. If that isn’t evidence of her slutyness what would one have to do, sleep with her himself?

  72. “Why is it that those who claim to be anti-absolutist in their intellectual outlook, are invariably either open or closet totalitarians in their political views?”

    Now we have another projection from the lily white fingers of DNW!

    I understand, DNW, how difficult, if not impossible, it is for you to view issues through the eyes of those more liberal than yourself, a prerequisite for negotiating solutions in a functioning system based on democratic principles and Constitutional restraints, neither of which we have working presently, because of those in power with ideologies like yours.

    Liberals, unlike you on the far Right, are willing to work out compromise solutions to key challenges, like the ACA, in which we settled for a private insurance compromise, as opposed to the public option or single payer, which is that which we really wanted.

    Please give me an example, just one will do, where you and your party have been willing to do the same. If you dig up one, then I will ask you for more!

  73. I’ve been thinking about Elle McPherson’s socialist admission. Of course, she’s so rich it really doesn’t matter very much at all what economic nostrums she espouses, she’s immune from any direct personal consequences.

    McPherson’s accumulated wealth allows her the freedom to bite the hand of the economic system that she’s so successfully represented, and which has rewarded her so generously.

    But then, it was never intelligence she was paid to put on display.

  74. “I am simply amazed that the Editor has given you your own blog despite your continued nastiness towards him (and others) on here and back at CSPT!”

    Although this issue is none of your business whatsoever, koolo, you can learn from our Editor’s example, as such one who does not constantly look for the negative in people like you do incessantly, and is civil, which you usually are not. I could learn too!

Comments are closed.