Filed under: Uncategorized
Rush Limbaugh: Contraception advocate should post online sex videos
Posted on March 1, 2012 by jeffpelline
Food & Wine, Arts & Culture
Click on icon for fall issue of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine, offering culture and entertainment news.
Facebook site is here
Smartphone app is here.
Sierra Geotourism map & guide
Click on icon to see map.
sacramento connect- “Sweet” Jobs Coming to West Sac
- just another Saturday in May
- Man Arrested for Rash of Vandalism
- Proud Sister: Graduation Day!
- Legislation makes initiative process more accessible with online petitions
- Rodeo ridin’ into Marysville; Stampede runs Saturday and Sunday
- Most California beaches had clean water in 2012
- NPR.org
Limbaugh and others have re-kindled the heaps of vitriol that was poured on my grandmother’s generation of women during the final passionate years of the suffrage movement. When my mother’s generation lost the ERA she said that her great granddaughters would have to face the consequences and take up the march forward once again.
The women who stand with Limbaugh to pile those heaps of acid on their sisters do so to themselves.
Wanda,
First, to be clearly understood, there is not one person of conservative ideology (and that includes Rush), that desires to see women or minorities lose their right of citizenship to vote in the United States of America.
In regard to his statement on posting the video of this woman having sex due to her request to have the taxpayers cover her contraception costs; he is in fact pointing out how absurd, and twisted her views are on morality and the unalienable rights that all citizens have including women.
The absurdity in question here is that this woman has confused her personal responsibility with that of her unalienable rights under the governing documents of our nation!
If anyone believes that healthcare in our country is a right then that requires proof of where that is written in our governing documents! If you or others are so inclined, please do so at once and put this entire controversy to rest once and for all time.
Respectfully,
Mark
Mark,
Thanks for sharing your view in a civil manner. Just a reminder to identify yourself more clearly to the moderator than “Mark” with a “Hotmail” email account. It would improve your credibility.
Dear “Mark,”
If our governing documents require that we have a chaotic, expensive, dangerous, unfair, and wasteful system of national health care system, then perhaps those hallowed governing documents are to blame.
All this pretend-reverence for what a bunch of old guys did in the 18th century is extremely tedious. We have 21st century problems that require bold thinking and creative solutions. Lead, follow, or get out of the way “Mark.”
Michael A.
It continuously amazes me how many people believe they know exactly what the writers of the Constitution and Declaration Of Independence wished to send forward to citizens of this Country. It is abundantly clear that our leaders don’t seem to let the contents of these documents guide their paths. It’s getting more difficult, everyday, to determine what our direction is. As for Rush (or anyone like him) it saddens me to think that any fairly bright American takes the time daily to listen to his rants.
Jon,
I think it is about conflating the founders/ framers with the sentiment of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution. Both documents are amazing when we consider the time they were written. At the ratification of the US Constitution roughly 5% of Americans were eligible to vote or run for office and people of color, women, and many poor men were considered property. I wouldn’t call that a great thing. This is how since the inception of our nation democracy has been a growing part of it. What’s incredible about the US Constitution is the ability to amend it and the Bill of Rights protecting the people from a government gone wrong or limiting government powers.
Here is what makes the US Constitution a living document. The ability to change it.
Article V
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
To go to the place the post them, see:
http://WWW.UglyRepublicansThatNoOneShouldEverSeeHavingSex.com
Maybe we could see one of Newt?
Who is the real slut?
If Rush has so much “respect” for women and minorities, why does he continually trash them? Oh, they can vote alright, as long as it’s voting for the person Rush would like to see win. If they don’t vote his way, they are slandered, libeled, and ridiculed with a copious amount of hot air.
Our form of government has long been refered to as the American experiment. While those who concieved the experiment deserve reverence for their foresight and courage, it is the nature of experiments that we know more now, 236 years on, than they did upon the initial conception. The founders understood that and made provisions for change.
We now face challenges they could not even imagined in their time, health care costs that threatens to overwhelm our economy; multinational corporate interests that threatens our representative form of government; Income inequality that threatens concentrating power back into the hands of a very few. Automation and globalization that threatens the existence of the middle class.
The future belongs to those who adapt, not those who think they can turn back the clock. We look to the past for the promise of personal freedom and self governence. We strive to overcome the challenges and to fulfill those promises, rather than pretend the promise is fullfilled and that the threats do not exist.
The hurdle is too high to amend the Constitution. An Achilles heel.
Michael,
I think the (state) CA Constitution is more practical. Get enough states to amend their constitution then we have the numbers to amend the US Constitution.
It’s not enough, Ben. We have a classic division in the Union. We’ll never get enough states due to the southern bloc.
Years ago I happened to see Rush on TV as he showed a clip of Chelsea, the Clinton’s daughter, at her most gangly, unattractive, ackward years. Rush was making faces and comments about her appearance–vile and nasty–picking on an easy target because he didn’t like her parents. I knew then that he was a real, well you can fill in the blanks because despicable carcass is to mild. That short segment told me all I needed to know about that loud mouth.
Now, addressing Mark’s comments, I think you are basically missing the point of the fury of women who simply have had enough of men like Daryl Issa telling them what they can do or not do with their bodies. In fact, this entire issue, pro choice/life should be decided by a special body, coposed entirely of women. We can work out the details later. (That’s a concession, because only due to the injection of Religion into the issue has it become an issue, IMHO.) Even before it was said publically recently, I wondered why a law hasn’t been passed by those opposing contraception/pro-choice out-lawing vasectamies. Many Christians claim they are victims of discrimination, which is only true because once in power they always demand that everyone do as they do, or be punished for their sins; just like with the Puritans in the 1600′s.
And continuing the theme Ben started, the Constitution as a Living Document, on “the durability and immutability of constitutions, Jefferson asserted that ‘no society can make a perpetual constitution or perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please.’ ” This in a letter to Madison prior to his return from France in 1789. Even 25 years later his opinion was basically the same, stating, “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to bbe touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country . . . But I know, also that laws and institutions must go hand and hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change wwith the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.” (Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution, Richard Beeman)
And we haven’t even touched upon the directive of the Preamble to “promote the general welfare.” The Constitution, as Jefferson believed and many do today, is a living, interpretive document. If it isn’t, what’s the explanation for the ugly confirmation battles so frequent in our history.
One thing is for sure, though: The Constitutions only means whatever FIVE justices say it means at any particular time. m
Ed and Mark,
General welfare is mentioned twice in the constitution 1) Preamble 2) Enumerated Powers of Congress
Article I Section VIII
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Here is a link that discusses this very issue.
http://new.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/911-and-the-constitution/terms-to-know#generalwelfare
Thanks for the link, Ben. As the article says at the end, people will continue to argue, according to the ends they wish to accomplish. There were many whom were virulently against ratification, as you, know. Even Patrick Henry, until being persuaded to change his mind.
I didn’t go into anything else, besides Jefferson’s thoughts and the Preamble, as I was in a rush–no pun intended–and hand to leave. I know, from previous discussions, we agree that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and not just a summary, placed there for jollies and having no real meaning or teeth, so again, I reenforce the power of the Preamble.