|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Mar 5, 2012 10:48:13 GMT -5
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Mar 5, 2012 11:05:44 GMT -5
The reaction from GU alumni on Friday was amazing. I've never seen so much pride in our alma mater. Even during the 2007 Final Four run.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 5, 2012 12:22:04 GMT -5
www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/03/a_statement_from_rushNot the best apology in the world, but it is an apology, albeit a fairly self serving one. ...which is more than Sarah Palin ever got. How come there's never a national media furor over some of the vicious bile that Bill Maher spews on a regular basis?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 5, 2012 12:51:23 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Mar 5, 2012 12:59:03 GMT -5
www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/03/a_statement_from_rushNot the best apology in the world, but it is an apology, albeit a fairly self serving one. ...which is more than Sarah Palin ever got. How come there's never a national media furor over some of the vicious bile that Bill Maher spews on a regular basis? So your takeaway from this is "poor Sarah Palin"? The difference is best expressed by Omar Little : Omar: Bird triflin', basically. Kill an everyday workin' man and all. I mean, I do some dirt, too, but I ain't never put my gun on nobody that wasn't in the game. Bunk: A man must have a code. Omar: Oh, no doubt.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,734
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 5, 2012 13:05:48 GMT -5
The difference between the apostate Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh is that Maher is a comedian by trade and a provocateur by choice, who tends to hit and run to the next punchline. Limbaugh's attacks were over a period of days, going so far as his invitation that the students post videos of their encounters so he could watch them. Stepping over a line is one thing, as Maher knows well with his9/11 diatribe, but Rush belly-flopped over this one.
Plaudits, therefore, to George Will and Matthew Dowd for saying Sunday on ABC what W. Mitt and friends will not: politicians are afraid of Rush. “I think the problem is the Republican leaders, Mitt Romney and the other candidates, don’t have the courage to say what they say in quiet, which, they think Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon,” Dowd said. “They think he is like a clown coming out of a small car at a circus. It’s great he is entertaining and all that. But nobody takes him seriously.”
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Mar 5, 2012 13:15:04 GMT -5
I don't see the distinction between Maher and Limbaugh that DFW is trying to make as valid - Limbaugh sees himself as a comedian as well (no one else really does, but that's here nor there).
That Daily Beast article TBird posted completely misses the fact that all of their examples are windbag-on-windbag crime.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,734
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 5, 2012 13:39:51 GMT -5
I don't see the distinction between Maher and Limbaugh that DFW is trying to make as valid - Limbaugh sees himself as a comedian as well (no one else really does, but that's here nor there). Rush isn't playing the Improv and getting HBO specials. He fancies himself as the change agent of American politics and a political kingmaker, without the erudition of William F. Buckley nor the discretion of Russell Kirk. Then again, when you're making $28 million a year on the radio, erudition only goes so far. Ask Glenn (Goldline) Beck.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 5, 2012 14:03:28 GMT -5
I don't see the distinction between Maher and Limbaugh that DFW is trying to make as valid - Limbaugh sees himself as a comedian as well (no one else really does, but that's here nor there). That Daily Beast article TBird posted completely misses the fact that all of their examples are windbag-on-windbag crime. Sandra Fluke maybe a law student but she wasn't exactly selected randomly to testify. Also, I'm not her biggest fan, but I wouldn't go so far as to call Hillary Clinton a windbag
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Mar 5, 2012 14:37:39 GMT -5
Sandra Fluke maybe a law student but she wasn't exactly selected randomly to testify. No one is selected to testify randomly, but there's a difference between being a Congressional witness and having your own cable news or talk radio show which you can throw bombs from.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 5, 2012 15:35:42 GMT -5
I don't see the distinction between Maher and Limbaugh that DFW is trying to make as valid - Limbaugh sees himself as a comedian as well (no one else really does, but that's here nor there). Rush isn't playing the Improv and getting HBO specials. He fancies himself as the change agent of American politics and a political kingmaker, without the erudition of William F. Buckley nor the discretion of Russell Kirk. Then again, when you're making $28 million a year on the radio, erudition only goes so far. Ask Glenn (Goldline) Beck. Look, I don't want to distract too much from the main discussion, and for the record, yes, I think Rush was an idiot, but if you don't think people like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart see themselves as change agents in American politics, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Yes, Bill Maher books the Improv and HBO specials. He's also a regular on CNN, and any political discussion show that will have him. The "I'm just a comedian" defense is flat out ridiculous. And the fact that they're not as popular or as rich as Rush Limbaugh is totally irrelevant. Having said that, I don't think anyone, public figure or student should have to endure the types of slurs that were hurled at Fluke. My point was merely that conservative women get this kind of thing all the time as well, and people rarely pay this much attention. In any case, comedian, radio show host, TV pundit, the goal of most of these people -- regardless of political stripe -- is to increase attention to themselves. By any means. It really doesn't matter that much to Rush Limbaugh that his comments are detrimental to any legitimate conservative case.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 5, 2012 15:36:43 GMT -5
Why don't Republicans explain workplace economics to Rush and his followers? As RusskyHoya explained last week, health insurance is not a gift or a subsidy from the employer or from the taxpayers. For employees it is part of their compensation. We have a tax system and a health care system that make it cheaper for everyone if employers sponsor health insurance plans for their employees in lieu of paying them more salary and having workers buy their own individual policies. Any organization that hires professionals or skilled workers has had to offer insurance in order to compete in the labor market. It doesn't give the employers the authority to dictate their employees' medical options. So Georgetown's health insurance options cover oral contraceptives for employees.
Businesses that hire mostly unskilled workers haven't had to offer insurance and have freeloaded off the other employers and the taxpayers to pay extra for emergency room care or public assistance. The free rider problem has added about 20% to employer health plans as hospitals, doctors, and other providers shift the costs of the nonpayers to the payers.
Many universities have had to offer health insurance coverage for students because many students aged out of eligibility for coverage on their parents' employer-sponsored health plan and could not get or afford individual health plans if they had any preexisting conditions or risks. To the extent that part of the premiums are paid by the university, those costs are passed on to students through tuition as are the costs of other services. The money is not coming from the Church or from taxpayers.
Rush apparently also thinks oral contraceptives are similar to his Viagra, the more sex one has the more pills one has to take. It is hard to believe that anyone could be so ignorant and also be so ignorant of his own ignorance that he would not shut the Edited up.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 5, 2012 19:41:39 GMT -5
Rush went way over the top and should be condemned. The people identified in Kirsten Powers article in The Daily Beast also went way over the top and should also be condemned. I haven't heard the outcry on them. Oh no, don't tell me the press is biased. What a surprise.
But all of this is a distraction from the Obama directive that Catholic institutions (not the churches themselves) must supply insurance that guarantees services that are against the teachings of the Catholic Church. As everyone knows, I believe abortion is the taking of an innocent human life and, therefore, is murder. The constitution does not give President Obama the authority to make me (or a Catholic hospital) buy something that pays for murder. And some of the services mandated are aborficient. Others are contraceptives, still others sterilization, all against the teachings of the Catholic Church. That's the issue.
To further the assault on religious freedom, the president mandates that it be given free of charge. So it's a calculated political ploy of offering things, widely used by women (and men), free. I call that buying votes.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Mar 5, 2012 20:03:33 GMT -5
But all of this is a distraction from the Obama directive that Catholic institutions (not the churches themselves) must supply insurance that guarantees services that are against the teachings of the Catholic Church. As everyone knows, I believe abortion is the taking of an innocent human life and, therefore, is murder. The constitution does not give President Obama the authority to make me (or a Catholic hospital) buy something that pays for murder. And some of the services mandated are aborficient. Others are contraceptives, still others sterilization, all against the teachings of the Catholic Church. That's the issue. Except Georgetown already offers all of that to their employees, so I'm not really sure why you think that's the issue. DeGioia did a nice job defending both the school and the student - the school's reputation was definitely under attack as well - but I wish he'd address why, if these principles are so important and foundational, that they only apply to students and not to faculty and staff - why the inconsistency in policy? I respect (but completely disagree with) the position - but it doesn't seem like the school respects their own stated position if they aren't willing to live it consistently across the board.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Mar 5, 2012 20:31:55 GMT -5
Many universities have had to offer health insurance coverage for students because many students aged out of eligibility for coverage on their parents' employer-sponsored health plan and could not get or afford individual health plans if they had any preexisting conditions or risks. To the extent that part of the premiums are paid by the university, those costs are passed on to students through tuition as are the costs of other services. The money is not coming from the Church or from taxpayers. This is really worth repeating. It's a point thats really lost here.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 5, 2012 21:30:59 GMT -5
But all of this is a distraction from the Obama directive that Catholic institutions (not the churches themselves) must supply insurance that guarantees services that are against the teachings of the Catholic Church. As everyone knows, I believe abortion is the taking of an innocent human life and, therefore, is murder. The constitution does not give President Obama the authority to make me (or a Catholic hospital) buy something that pays for murder. And some of the services mandated are aborficient. Others are contraceptives, still others sterilization, all against the teachings of the Catholic Church. That's the issue. Except Georgetown already offers all of that to their employees, so I'm not really sure why you think that's the issue. DeGioia did a nice job defending both the school and the student - the school's reputation was definitely under attack as well - but I wish he'd address why, if these principles are so important and foundational, that they only apply to students and not to faculty and staff - why the inconsistency in policy? I respect (but completely disagree with) the position - but it doesn't seem like the school respects their own stated position if they aren't willing to live it consistently across the board. 1. Georgetown's policies make no sense. They somehow managed to make no one happy. In other words, they are classic Georgetown administrative policies. 2. The issue Ed's talking about isn't specific to Georgetown. It's a national policy implemented by President Obama where the government forces religious institutions to purchase insurance policies that violate their conscious. You'll note that President Obama agrees that churches/synagogues/etc do not have to purchase insurance policies that cover birth control / abortificents / sterilization if it violates their conscious. However, once the religion reaches outside of its specific place of worship, it must violate its conscious to do so. Here's Cardinal Dolan's latest letter on it: blog.archny.org/?p=2291
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Mar 5, 2012 21:41:08 GMT -5
Rush went way over the top and should be condemned. The people identified in Kirsten Powers article in The Daily Beast also went way over the top and should also be condemned. I haven't heard the outcry on them. Oh no, don't tell me the press is biased. What a surprise. But all of this is a distraction from the Obama directive that Catholic institutions (not the churches themselves) must supply insurance that guarantees services that are against the teachings of the Catholic Church. As everyone knows, I believe abortion is the taking of an innocent human life and, therefore, is murder. The constitution does not give President Obama the authority to make me (or a Catholic hospital) buy something that pays for murder. And some of the services mandated are aborficient. Others are contraceptives, still others sterilization, all against the teachings of the Catholic Church. That's the issue. To further the assault on religious freedom, the president mandates that it be given free of charge. So it's a calculated political ploy of offering things, widely used by women (and men), free. I call that buying votes. Scenario 1: Catholic Hospital pays its employees salary - employee has choice to use that catholic-provided salary to buy or not buy birth control. Scenario 2: Catholic Hospital pays its portion of employees health benefits - employee chooses to procure or not procure birth control from insurance. In either scenario, the catholic hospital is indirectly paying for birth control. The only thing that's different is that, under Obama's plan, it goes through a middle man first. Could someone explain to me why this change is big deal? or is this one of those situations where I get confused because logic isn't a requirement?
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Mar 5, 2012 21:55:27 GMT -5
Scenario 1: Catholic Hospital pays its employees salary - employee has choice to use that catholic-provided salary to buy or not buy birth control. Scenario 2: Catholic Hospital pays its portion of employees health benefits - employee chooses to procure or not procure birth control from insurance. In either scenario, the catholic hospital is indirectly paying for birth control. The only thing that's different is that, under Obama's plan, it goes through a middle man first. Could someone explain to me why this change is big deal? or is this one of those situations where I get confused because logic isn't a requirement? I love logic and rationality.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 5, 2012 21:55:35 GMT -5
Rush went way over the top and should be condemned. The people identified in Kirsten Powers article in The Daily Beast also went way over the top and should also be condemned. I haven't heard the outcry on them. Oh no, don't tell me the press is biased. What a surprise. But all of this is a distraction from the Obama directive that Catholic institutions (not the churches themselves) must supply insurance that guarantees services that are against the teachings of the Catholic Church. As everyone knows, I believe abortion is the taking of an innocent human life and, therefore, is murder. The constitution does not give President Obama the authority to make me (or a Catholic hospital) buy something that pays for murder. And some of the services mandated are aborficient. Others are contraceptives, still others sterilization, all against the teachings of the Catholic Church. That's the issue. To further the assault on religious freedom, the president mandates that it be given free of charge. So it's a calculated political ploy of offering things, widely used by women (and men), free. I call that buying votes. Scenario 1: Catholic Hospital pays its employees salary - employee has choice to use that catholic-provided salary to buy or not buy birth control. Scenario 2: Catholic Hospital pays its portion of employees health benefits - employee chooses to procure or not procure birth control from insurance. In either scenario, the catholic hospital is indirectly paying for birth control. The only thing that's different is that, under Obama's plan, it goes through a middle man first. Could someone explain to me why this change is big deal? or is this one of those situations where I get confused because logic isn't a requirement? It's a big deal because Catholics think it's a big deal and because forcing them to pay for insurance that covers it directly interferes with their free exercise of religion, which, as I'm constantly told, includes social justice outreach through institutions. And, oddly enough, President Obama agrees with me that forcing Catholics (or Muslims, or Protestents or whoever) to purchase insurance that covers birth control, sterilizations and abortificents violates their free exercise of religion, or he wouldn't have created an exception for Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and other places of worship. I'm honestly a little shocked that the Democratic Party would come out so strongly against religious freedoms that they'd consider Ted Kennedy's views to be extremist, but hey, such is modern politics.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Mar 5, 2012 22:10:17 GMT -5
Scenario 1: Catholic Hospital pays its employees salary - employee has choice to use that catholic-provided salary to buy or not buy birth control. Scenario 2: Catholic Hospital pays its portion of employees health benefits - employee chooses to procure or not procure birth control from insurance. In either scenario, the catholic hospital is indirectly paying for birth control. The only thing that's different is that, under Obama's plan, it goes through a middle man first. Could someone explain to me why this change is big deal? or is this one of those situations where I get confused because logic isn't a requirement? It's a big deal because Catholics think it's a big deal and because forcing them to pay for insurance that covers it directly interferes with their free exercise of religion, which, as I'm constantly told, includes social justice outreach through institutions. And, oddly enough, President Obama agrees with me that forcing Catholics (or Muslims, or Protestents or whoever) to purchase insurance that covers birth control, sterilizations and abortificents violates their free exercise of religion, or he wouldn't have created an exception for Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and other places of worship. I'm honestly a little shocked that the Democratic Party would come out so strongly against religious freedoms that they'd consider Ted Kennedy's views to be extremist, but hey, such is modern politics. You do realize you didn't actually answer my question. What's the difference between scenario 1 and 2? Catholic money already pays for birth control indirectly through salaries. Obama instead wants them to pay for it indirectly through insurance. What's the actual difference? "Because the catholic church says there's a difference" is not an adequate answer in my book.
|
|