<p>
</p>
<p>Ugh, I really didn’t want to get involved in this conversation, especially because I do not listen to either Maher or Limbaugh. But this ^ statement made me curious - what is the big difference between the two women who were called the “c” and “s” words? Why was one more deserving of being called a derogatory name than the other, if that is what you are implying?</p>
<p>Don’t worry, people. All is right in the world.</p>
<p>The mysogonists all stick together when it come to denigrating women. If there is one thing both Maher and Rush agree on, it is the unimportance of speaking respectfully about women. Maher is on the record on his twitter account chastizing the liberals for not accepting Rush’s Fauxpology. “It makes them look bad,” he says.</p>
<p>Yep. It is simply not important what you call a woman. Both men are in complete agreement on this issue. 
Tells you a lot about Maher, and Rush, when the only thing they can agree on is that women are all sorts of bleeping words. Finally, a place they can find solidarity: sexism.</p>
<p>–too true</p>
<p>
OK, I admit it. You got me. I’ve wracked my brain trying to figure out how this post responded in any way to what I had written, and failed. (I had written about how control of money was a means of enforcing social beliefs on others, if that helps anyone.)</p>
<p>Who (or what) is “the ‘unmentionable’”? And why is the number of his/her/its children “questionable”? If I get the answers to those questions I assume I’ll be able to figure out the rest. (I try to keep up with the latest wacky stories floating around, one of which I assume this is a veiled reference to, but if so, this one had whizzed right by me. Even Google couldn’t help me.)</p>
<p>Names aren’t the issue. I could care less about the words. As far as I’m concerned Rush or Maher or whomever can use whatever words they like. Names aren’t the issue.</p>
<p>Concepts are the issue. Rush’s concept - a) that the fact that she uses birth control means she is very sexually active (false), b) that since she is sexually active she must be available for hire for sex, and hence, c) since she is available for hire for sex, she should post video of it is what is disgusting. </p>
<p>I heard Maher’s clip - he did nothing of the kind. I’d prefer he use different language, but he did nothing of the kind.</p>
<p>Anyone who is against federal mandates should start with the U.S. military, veterans, and their families, who have had it for a very long time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very true. But to be accurate, you should also mention that a) he was given an unpaid time out from his show, b) gave what sounded like a sincere apology, defining “sincere” as not blaming others, as Rush did, for what he said plus not continuing to insult people in the same “apology”. And Schultz (of whom I am not a fan, but I listen on occasion) also said one word, while Rush went on and on and on for 3 days. He not only called a private person a vile name, but suggested she post pictures of herself having sex.</p>
<p>Personally, I think it was the suggestion that a law student post sex tapes that put people over the edge, rather than just the word he called her. That was so over the top, no one could believe he said it.</p>
<p>I don’t favor the boycotts that are trying to force Limbaugh off the air, but I do think an unpaid time out would send an appropriate message.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’d prefer? How thoughtful of you. </p>
<p>I did not hear Maher’s clip, and I couldn’t find it via a youtube search, but I did find the one where he called her a “dumb twat.” It is easy to say that “names aren’t the issue,” when you are not the one being called a name.</p>
<p>I logged on to mention that Cecile Richards was classy and stunning on the Daily Show last night (at $400K/yr).</p>
<p>To Kluge - I was referencing S.P. If you are a reader of The Dish, you would know that A.S.
has always doubted she is the parent of the youngest child.</p>
<p>No. I do think names are the issue. It is important to talk about concepts and ideas. But when the speaker reverts to name-calling, it means they are simply out of ideas and instead want to denigrate the other person. </p>
<p>We need to have civil discussions in this country without using profanity, slurs or name-calling. We need to talk to each other and exchange ideas without debasing someone’s sex, religion, race, etc. </p>
<p>A person who would call a woman, whether she is a governor or a private citizen, a degrading word, should no longer be acceptable company. Yet they are still on the air, still invited to things, Bill Maher is going to be headlining a dinner for Alabama Democrats to raise money. (I wonder if any of the Republican candidates will go on Rush’s show anymore). Rappers who use ‘bit@hes and hos’ are felt to be perfectly fine. </p>
<p>The standard for using that sort of language in connection with women needs to be the same for using the ‘n’ word. Social oblivion.</p>
<p>“did not hear Maher’s clip, and I couldn’t find it via a youtube search, but I did find the one where he called her a “dumb twat.” It is easy to say that “names are the issue,” when you are not the one being called a name.”</p>
<p>to each his own. Rush’s words didn’t bother me. It would nicer if he didn’t use them, but they really don’t. At any rate, they were in no way comparable.</p>
<p>If you think they are, that’s fine with me.</p>
<p>But look beyond the words, and see what Rush actually said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They bother a lot of people. Probably about 50% of the world’s population may be bothered by Rush’s and Maher’s words. It would be helpful if more of the other 50% were bothered by it, too.</p>
<p>I disagree with this contraception stuff, but it is religion based. There’s no need for contraception unless one is sexually active. According to my religious beliefs, one should not be sexually active until they’re married, at which point they should be able to afford it, so I can’t really go for it being needed to be covered by insurance.</p>
<p>With this name-calling stuff, that was bad (by Rush and Maher). However, when Andrew Brietbart died, I heard him called alot of mean/demeaning terms by liberal talk show hosts. They disrespected a dead man, which is despicable.</p>
<p>It is very easy to stop listening to them. I don’t listen/watch these guys, and my life is better for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As has been stated repeatedly on this thread and elsewhere, there are many uses for birth control besides contraception. They’re used to treat ovarian cysts, among other serious medical conditions. </p>
<p>Are all the rest of us required to live according to your personal beliefs?</p>
<p>No, they’re not, which is why I’ll just agree to disagree. I don’t force religion on others (unlike a certain religion I’m sure most people are familiar with.)</p>
<p>I just don’t agree with the current insurance set-up, but paying for everything people want/need doesn’t help either. I need a condom a day, and some medicinal marijuana. My insurance should pay for all of that, true?</p>
<p>“Quote:
I don’t like Bill Maher. But I will point out that there was a big difference between the person he called a nasty name, and the person Rush called a nasty name,”</p>
<p>Oh my goodness! Since when should a person feel that it’s ok to call one woman a bad name, but not ok to call another…just because you don’t agree with the first woman’s politics and do agree with the other. That’s just wrong…wrong. </p>
<p>Either women deserve respect or they don’t. We don’t have a party-litmus test for basic decency. If we start having one, this country will go downhill in a hurry as both sides are given “permission” to trash women of the opposing side. Think about…is that what you want? I sure don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes… there is… Oy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>kluge, I don’t know either, but a particular person popped immediately to my mind. This is just a guess:</p>
<p>A person says that all women who use birth control are [insert bad word]. And yet this person, although married four times, has never produced a child. So either his wives use/d birth control and are therefore [insert bad word], or he really doesn’t believe what he says he believes. Of these two explanations, I favor the latter. But there are several other explanations which IMO are far more likely. Hint: This person was once caught carrying large quantities of Viagra (which, BTW, is usually covered by insurance).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you work for a religious institution, then maybe you should respect their beliefs.</p>
<p>“I need a condom a day, and some medicinal marijuana. My insurance should pay for all of that, true?”</p>
<p>If a team of best public health and medicine experts in the country, convened specifically for this purpose, based on the best available evidence, recommends to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which, in turn, validating the research basis, passes the recommendation on to HHS that these are recommended preventive health services, you bet they should. And your insurance company would be jumping at the chance to do so, because it would save THEM (and hence you) money.</p>
<p>“If you work for a religious institution, then maybe you should respect their beliefs.”</p>
<p>Whose? My wife works for the largest Catholic health system in the Tri-State area, which self-insures, and covers hundreds of thousands of employees and family members. Their board is all Catholic - and includes monsignors, priests, nuns, and Catholic “heavy hitters”. Apparently it is in keeping with their CATHOLIC beliefs to provide all preventive health services - including birth control pills - to all covered employees and families. And they have for a very long time. Even to nuns, if they need them. (some do, for reasons already stated.) They also do so because they know that to do so is CHEAPER for them.</p>
<p>Mind you, this is part of their Catholic belief system. They do not allow my wife to assist in implementation of the “death with dignity” law (assisted suicide) because that is NOT in keeping with their Catholic belief system. But birth control pills definitely are, or they wouldn’t be providing them (without co-pay - they aren’t free - they are paid for as part of the premium. But even that isn’t really true, because providing them LOWERS the premiums for everyone.)</p>
<p>And, in my state, not only do Catholic institutions provide birth control pills in keeping with their Catholic beliefs, many Catholic CHURCHES do.</p>