Snowe and the electric car
I only had one occasion to speak to Olympia Snowe, almost 40 years ago. I was the new owner of Dover-Foxcroft’s Brown’s Mill and Ms. Snowe was a first-time candidate for the House of Representatives. Before her appearance at a local school, she scheduled time to visit our mill, its hydroelectric plant where the town got its base load of zero-carbon energy, and to consider my experimental vehicle display of alternative energy.
She was a good listener and a good questioner.
When it was time for her to leave for her rally, I asked her if she had any interest in driving there in a Sebring Vanguard Electric Citicar. That raised her eyebrows. The car looked more like a slab of cheese on wheels than an automobile. It was already dark, she had never driven an electric car and, not surprising, this was only the tenth Citicar sold.
She cautiously agreed. It was not as fast and would go not as far, but it was not as greedy as a gas vehicle, getting its energy at the mill from our generators — 10 cents purchased enough “juice” a day could to fill a Citicar tank back then.
At the school, I watched her walk to the lighted doorway, the last time I ever saw her in person.
I followed her political career with interest, and even though I later felt forced to change parties, she always got my vote. She is still a courageous lady who puts her country first and speaks with honesty not often heard in Washington.
Charles E. Mac Arthur
Sangerville
Thinking about the future
On the political scene today, most people who have formed an opinion will tell you that they “think” they know what is wrong with our country and what needs fixing. They may also tell you they “think” they know who will make our best next president, and why.
The so-called far-right “feel” they know what is wrong. They will go on to tell you, “anybody but Obama.”
I have a real problem with this. Do they ever listen to themselves saying this? Who is “anybody?” Can this “anybody” do the job better? Resolve the concerns and fears we all share? Put the country in better shape than it is now? What if this “anybody” turns out to be a real “nobody”? What do we “feel” then?
As for me, I haven’t made my decisions yet. I’m still thinking of the options and won’t stop thinking until I can give commonsense reasons for the decision I end up making, should anyone care to ask me. I recommend that everyone take this approach.
Bill Shook
Bangor
Constitutional conflict?
Isn’t tax exempt status for religious institutions anywhere in the U.S. a violation of the First Amendment’s mandate that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? Surely it helps a religious institution to establish itself at the citizenry-in-general’s expense. No?
John Lyman
Orono
Cheer up, Mary
I read a letter to the editor recently on people leaving up their Christmas wreaths too long.
Christians put up wreaths at Christmastime and they are usually beautiful. It is one nice reminder of the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I realize some people leave them up too long and then they turn brown, lose their needles and so forth. But I would say to the writer, Mary, there are so many other things of real importance to worry about in this world: the economy, housing, world hunger, gas prices and the list goes on, that a brown wreath is insignificant.
Cheer up, Mary, eventually the needles will all fall off and your problem will be solved.
Michael J. Clukey
Sangerville
Chicken pox side effects
In response to the recent BDN story “Mom favoring chickenpox infection over vaccination,” chickenpox is not simply an itchy childhood illness but a virus that will be in your body for life. It can cause shingles and may cause trigenminal neuralgia.
In our family, parents and five children had chickenpox as children. As adults, three of the children had shingles. My husband recently had severe facial shingles causing worry for his eyesight. I’ve had shingles, later neuralgia which was alleviated by my doctor prescribing a Zoster vaccine. Often neuralgia arises at ages 50-70, hence the suggested Zoster vaccine shot at age 60.
Shingles pain can be an ice-pick stabbing pain and a red burning rash that sometimes cannot bear the brush of clothing.
Neuralgia caused by the nerve that sends messages from brain to face is excruciating. It’s an unpredictable pain which can be caused by chewing, tooth brushing, washing your face or a passing breeze. It also involves ice-pick like pain, terrible burning of face without a rash which lasts seconds, sometimes 30 minutes.
I understand the fear of children’s reaction to shots but isn’t it wonderful that ours now have the chance to not have childhood illnesses that in some cases can cause deafness, impaired eyesight, crippled limbs, and weak hearts? Thank God for our medical advancements and the medical field that cares for us and those that find these preventions!
Beverly Roberts
Bradford
More reason, less dogma
In response to the recent OpEd by Carroll Conley of the Christian Civic League opposing same-sex marriage, I wish to take issue with his fear that gay marriage will adversely affect society by forcing people and businesses to accept homosexuals.
“What about a florist that objects on religious grounds?” he asks.
Well, what about that florist? I’m sure at this very moment even the most Christian florists are currently serving women who use contraception, as well as divorced people, girls who have had abortions, atheists, members of different religions, people who take the Lord’s name in vain and adulterers.
And would it be OK to stone to death that same florist if he chose to be open on Sunday? The Bible clearly says I should.
My point is, the road forward should consist of reasonable conversation, not unbending dogma.
Mark McCall
Brewer
Why does Rush survive?
If memory serves, radio talk show host Don Imus was drummed right out of broadcasting for his remarks about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.
Now comes Rush Limbaugh, the unofficial voice of the Republican Party, calling a Georgetown coed a slut and a prostitute and wanting to see videos, and he continues merrily along.
Where is the outrage? Who makes the decisions to allow people of Limbaugh’s ilk to continue blathering away? Who hires them to begin with? They are the ones we should be boycotting.
Russ Irwin
Hampden
That is Mr. Limbaugh to you guys.
MR. Shook—don’t get so shook up about nothing. When people say “anybody but Obama” they are not being literal. It’s a catchy slogan, designed to show that they feel Obama has done a lousy job as President. I mean, I am sure they would rather have Obama than Hugo Chavez….or Eric Holder…..um, I can’t think of anyone else :)
Mr. Lyman–um, no. It’s your argument turned around that would be a Constitutional infringement…
Mr. Clukey- My wreath is very brown and ugly and it is still sitting on my front door. I feel kind of bad for leaving it there, but it suits my mood right now.
Ms. Roberts–I don’ think health policy in general should be based on your family’s experience. I prefer to use an evidence based approach rather than an anecdotal. And overall, I vote for each person making an informed choice based on what is important to that individual.
Mr. Irwin–what is outrageously ironic is that Ms. Fluke and her supporters feel Rush is trying to silence her, while in reality they are actively working to silence him. What Imus said was outrageous, what Rush said was ridiculous, and I support their right to say it, and the right of others to be outraged by it. Free-for-alls are fun!
No, you both have it wrong. The Constitution does not bar the government from taxing churches. It does not mandate it either. The government elects not to. The tax code grants many exemptions from taxation. Tens of thousands of non-profits also pay no tax. The Constitution is very permissive and allows wide latitude for the government to decide what and whom to tax.I’m not guessing on this either, I’m an attorney.
Well, I am not an attorney, but I pretend to be one online…..Sure the Constitution does not say the government shall not tax a church…but it does say the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof. Having the government levy taxes on the church would very easily lead to an argument that they are prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
You’d much prefer a repeat of the eight – Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld?
Your criticism should be not of those left holding the baby, but of those who dumped it on our doorsteps.
The $6.4 trillion debt
incurred by George W. Bush accounts for almost half of today’s total $14,3 trillion debt.
Two needless wars, the killing of capital
gains and inheritance taxes, all helped inflate the deficit.
Remember, the Iraq War Bush and Cheney
plunged us into was completely unjustified.
Both wars account for the two trillion dollar plus debt handed to Barack
Obama when he became president.
Observers
agree, almost half of the total of today’s $14.3 trillion debt was accumulated
during the eight-year reign of Bush and Cheney.
The economy is struggling but slowly coming back. Unemployment is down. The auto industry has been saved. Bush initiated the Wall Street bailout and it too was saved. Bin Laden is no more, along with his top level assassins. Al Queda is crippled and the Afghanistan War is nearly over. The Iraq war is over. Libya is free of a tyrant and an assassin. We have no plans to start a war with Iran, or, interfere with Syria. The stock market was enjoying a good spell until the Iranian flare-up over its supposed nukes. People who were shortchanged on financing their homes lost to re-possession can now re-mortgage them at the lowest rates ever. Prescription drug prices have been lowered for seniors. Banks can no longer overcharge customers for bank services.
All this and more, while Sen. Mitch McConnell keeps up his three-year rant that his only reason for being in Congress is to see that Obama does not get a second term.
My criticism is for those who took the baby and raised a monster. The $6.4 trillion debt is nothing. Obama has racked up $5 trillion in less than one term. I don’t feel inclined to elect this guy and let him keep the national pocketbook.
We may have left Iraq–but try to tell the police victims of the recent attack that the war is over. Afghanistan, or should we call it Obama’s war for Opium, is no more stable than it was when Obama declared it the “right war” to fight. Libya is free of one tryant, only to replace him with another repressive regime in the making. It wasn’t our civil war to get involved in.
The unemployment numbers do not take into account the number of people who have just given up looking for a job. Juxtapose the unemployment rate with the rate of welfare benefits being paid out by states, and you will get a true idea of how our economy is going. If more people were truly finding jobs, then why are states spending more on public assistance? The stock market has not even struggled back to where it was before the economy tanked. Gas prices are reaching $4 per gallon. And we are supposed to be happy because our bank isn’t charging us a $5 fee?
One has to be happy for what we have, especially during a recession.
Newt says, if elected he will be pumping gas at $2.50, in between trips to his moon colony.
Gas prices don’t upset the Romneys. They still manage to keep three Cadillacs on the highway. Santorum has more loftier goals. But, like the others he says he will solve everything.
So, with Romney in the lead, it looks like he’s going to be the next president, unless Palin jumps in. In any case that should solve everyone’s worries and wash away the gloom so many feel is all of Obama’s making.
The 6.4 trillion is an exaggeration and false. Gross federal debt at the end of 1999 was 9.28686 trillion. End of 2007 was 13.9693 for a total of 4.68244 trillion. If you use numbers for 2000 to 2008, the years for which GW’s budgets were in effect, the number is 4.38633 Trillion.
Gross federal debt includes EVERYTHING, including so called off budget items like the war.
usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1990_2010USb_11s1li011mcn_H0f
Bill Shook, democrats are sexy. Who ever heard of a nice piece of elephant? Besides, if democrats really hated America, they would vote republican.
Does Limbaugh hope to obtain an elephant’s size? He surely lacks an elephant’s memory.
Well, he is going to need to go on a diet soon. To date, 9 advertisers have pulled their adds, and today the Canadian rock group Rush ordered him to cease playing their music during his show.
Try 28 advertisers gone.
36. When it hits 76, we will play “76 Trombones” from the Music Man.
43
I just happened to read your tread. If as you suggest Limbaugh has a bad memory, maybe you ought to go head-to-head with him in a debate on national radio. Unless you’re a glut for punishment, I suggest you don’t try it however. You’ll get knocked down very early in the first round!
LOL
Mr. Irwin, Rush Limbaugh is out there as a warning to the nation of how far to the right the Republican Party has gone. Mr. Romney could only meekly say that Limbaugh’s words “were not the language I would have used.” “Heavens,” Mitt must have thought, “this is as gauche as using a dessert spoon to eat one’s soup!”
As this profile in cowardice goes on, the nation will see that electing any Republican as President would lead to a descent into malice, misanthropy, and misogyny.
Let Limbaugh lather on. We need to know more about our modern-day Know Nothing Party. Familiarity will breed in the voters the contempt that the modern Republican Party so richly deserves.
They want to cover the middle east in bombs, but they’re scared of Limbaugh. Ridiculous.
Mr .Lyman you kinda got it backwards if the fed tried to make a law stating that religious institutions had to pay a tax then it would be in conflict.
No, you both have it wrong. The Constitution does not bar the government from taxing churches. It does not mandate it either. The government elects not to. The tax code grants many exemptions from taxation. Tens of thousands of non-profits also pay no tax. The Constitution is very permissive and allows wide latitude for the government to decide what and whom to tax.
I’m not guessing on this either, I’m an attorney.
Churches pay fewer taxes than non-church nonprofits. Payroll taxes, for example. FUTA, FICA. Unlike other nonprofit organizations, churches are exempt from anti-discrimination laws and don’t pay unemployment, social security, or Medicaid. Churches can’t be lumped in with all nonprofit organizations, counselor.
“Well, what about that florist? I’m sure at this very moment even the
most Christian florists are currently serving women who use
contraception, as well as divorced people, girls who have had abortions,
atheists, members of different religions, people who take the Lord’s
name in vain and adulterers.”
Excellent point! Allowing this selective discrimination is disgusting and unAmerican.
I suspect that any florist that would not serve these individuals would soon be out of business, and therefore pay for their folly.
John Lyman: To your point take away the Church’s tax benefit and I hope they abandon all charitable activites forcing the taxpayer to pick up the tab. I’m sure that would pass your test of constitutionality.
Bill Shook: The way this whole mess started was people voting for anyone but a republican in 2008 and look at all the problems. Deep down, ABO.
And look at the cast of characters the Republicans have put up to face President Obama. I am underwelmed.
Problems? Oh, you mean like where to dump Bin Laden’s body? Or which day Ghaddaffi should be kicked out? In case you haven’t noticed, the US has been adding private sector jobs for the last 23 months, except for Wisconsin, which has been losing jobs for the last nine. Who is in charge of Wisconsin? Why it is that Koch buddy, Scott Walker. You know, the guy who promised jobs but then decided to cut them after giving tax breaks to the corporations in the state. Do you really expect any president to fix in three years what the last one spent 8 years wrecking? Dream on.
According to the Bureau of Labor Standards, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate has declined 0.4% from Dec 2010 to Dec 2011 (the latest available numbers). On the other hand, Illinois which has had a Democratic governor for at least the past 9 years, has seen an unemployment increase of 0.6% over the same period. Wisconsin’s overall unemployment rate is significantly lower than the national average while Illinois’ is significantly higher. Facts are important when you are discussing the outcome of promises.
That is the problem with statistics. It can be just a little out of date. According to The Badger Herald, a Wisconsin newspaper, an article appeared on March 5, 2012, stating Wisconsin lost 27,700 private sector jobs between August and December, 2011. That is more than any other state for that period.
In another article I found by googling “Wisconsin unemployment” a report stated that many more people in the state were working two jobs to make ends meet. That may be a pervasive problem throughout the US.
The Badger Herald is citing statistics provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (I mistakenly referred to it as Standards earlier). So, are the statistics I cited from BLS information more or less reliable than those cited by The Badger? I would point out that the statistics cited in The Badger are for a rather short snapshot of 4 months whereas the statistics I cite cover a 12 month period. The Badger does state that, despite Walker’s not yet fulfilling his promise of creating 250,000 jobs, the overall unemployment rate for Wisconsin has decreased a full 1%, also according to BLS. So, on the one hand you are blaming a Republican governor for overall job losses in a 4 month period of time and on the other you are supporting a Democrat president for not having made significant changes in the overall job outlook in a 3 year period of time. I’m not sure you can have it both ways.
Actually I think it is foolish either way. I posted just to show that statistics can be misused. I do not believe either a Governor or President has a lot to do with the unemployment rate. Right wing nuts like to point out that the US rate of unemployment has not decreased as much as Obama had promise and claim it is a sign of his failed policies. I can point out the it has not decreased as much as conservative Governors have promised, Wisconsin’s Governor promised to create 250,000 jobs. There are too many factors involved to actually believe either is a failure. It depends on companies using there huge cash reserves to hire. And that depends on people willing to spend money to buy items. It is in reality a slow process to get back to a pre 2008 economy. I wish both had been able to keep there promises, but I am realistic as to the time it will take.
Apparently I completely misinterpreted your initial post of “In case you haven’t noticed, the US has been adding private sector jobs for the last 23 months, except for Wisconsin, which has been losing jobs for the last nine. Who is in charge of Wisconsin? Why it is that Koch buddy, Scott Walker. ” to mean that you did in fact blame Scott Walker for Wisconsin’s loss of private sector jobs for the last 9 months. That you refer to opposing opinion as “right wing nuts” and that you use no such denigrating terms of the opposing side speaks volumes of your beliefs.
Any one who believes a Governor or President has the power to create private sector jobs is a nut using simplistic reasoning. They can try to encourage private sector hiring, but that is about all they can do, It is up to the companies to actually start hiring. It is from the right that I have heard that Lepage has created jobs and Obama has lost them. The only comments I have read about it from the other side is pointing out the trend. Awhile back when statistics indicated jobs were opening up in Maine, the right wing nuts said it was Lepage’s policies. The fact that the situation is improving nationwide is not even mentioned, Only the fact that not as many jobs have been created nationwide as Obama said was his goal. The fact is that the situation is improving and will continue to improve, although not as fast as most would like. Most people who were paying attention in 2008 knew that no matter who was elected President, it would be a long slow recovery. Anything else stated is just talking points during an election year.
You don’t get it. Lose public sector jobs and gain private sector jobs for a net INCREASE of .4%.
Anything that decreases the number of public sector jobs anywhere is a good thing.
I’d like to hear you say that as you watch your house burn while waiting for a non funded fire dept.
BILL,
I do know what’s wrong with America, and I can say that with confidence. It is our overbearing government under liberal control. If after three years of obama you can not see the obvious damage to America, then please think this out all the way past the election. You and many other need to make your choice for president after the election is over.
MARK,
No conversation, no compromise.
RUSS,
It’s called free speech, and the left does it, and worse all the time. Yea, bad choice of words, but the message was spot on. Rush had a slip of the tongue in a fit of rage. Move on and listen to the real message he broadcast. ” Freedom From The Left “.
Do you have any daughters?
Ms. Fluke never once spoke of her own need for contraceptives, yet Limbaugh has spread the lie that she did. He has spread the lie that she is promiscuous.
That you would fault him only for word choice and say that his message was “spot on” tells all who read your post that you have not a single shred of decency.
You defile the word conservative with your post.
The message is ” Pay Your Own way “, and quit expecting everything for nothing. You couldn’t understand a conservative message if it rained all over your head. The underlying message had nothing to do with being promiscuous, or name calling. It had to do with another liberal making demands. Truth is the whole thing was orchestrated by the obama administration and rush fell into their trap. Is she now not the new poster girl for the obama reelection? I rest my case.
You sound like a lunatic on a street corner carrying a little hand made sign in bad English and howling about doomsday.
YOU might want to heed what Amcon is saying.
Why?
Because more often than not, he’s spot on.
When?
Do you mean the “Occupy” loons?
He IS a lunatic on a street corner howling about doomsday. He didn’t rest his “case,” he decided to rest that very tiny brain.
Who’s asking for someone else to pay? They just want their insurance plans to cover contraceptives. They ARE paying.
If they ARE paying, then they should make sure that the plan they are paying for covers what they want to be covered. If you don’t read the entire policy, once it’s signed, too bad.
Or, they can advocate for a minimum standard that includes contraceptives.
Shouldn’t that be up to the providers?
No, it should be up to the government to determine a minimum standard. Just like they do with a minimum wage, for example.
The government shouldn’t set the minimum wage. If there is one, it should be set by each state to work with the cost of living of that particular state.
That’s already what happens, EJP. The federal government sets a minimum standard and then states are free to set their own standard as well, like Maine has, as long as it doesn’t go below that minimum.
But it’s just an example. The point is that government sets standards ALL the time. This is nothing new. The controversy here is just a selective tirade of the fringe right, seizing and opportunity to gain some political points.
People ought to be able to advocate for themselves and to their government without being smeared by lairs. A woman ought to be able to talk about her health without being referred to as promiscuous, whether through direct terminology or sentiment.
Well, if Limbaugh hadn’t messed up, no one would be talking about the issue.
The point is that government sets far too many standards already that it has no legitimate or constitutional basis doing.
No, that’s not your point. No one on the right in arguing against the inclusion of contraceptives is making that point. And if you were, you’d be complaining with the same furor about a heck of a lot more minimum standards than simply the inclusion of a prescription for women. But alas, you’re not.
Just because you disagree you don’t get to tell me what I am thinking or what my point is. Your arrogance in doing so shows only your own inability to intelligently argue for your opinion.
And I am now and have in the past complained about many of the standards, rules, and regulations that government forces on us. Effectively making us slaves to government.
But progressives like you like being a slave. That false sense of security that “master” will take care of you.
Not only can I disagree with you, but I can also call you on your bull. The sudden extreme outrage over this insignificant mandate demonstrates very clearly this isn’t about government overreach. The government creates mandates all the time and this certainly isn’t a new occurrence. Call me arrogant all you want, but establishing a minimum standard for health care plans doesn’t constitute enslavement, not even close. An assertion like that is ridiculous. The fact that your argument relies on hyperbole and character defamation just shows desperation. The hypocrisy is also highlighted when you’re silent on other government mandates and when you’re the ones advocating more mandates, such as barring same-day voter registration. No one takes your cries of a slave master seriously, beyond those in the fringe right echo chamber of course.
An employee or a student cannot choose the policy language of a policy purchased by her employer or university. Use some common sense.
The student is not required to purchase the university sponsored plan. They are only required to have insurance. They are free to obtain coverage from another source.
Extremism never works.Rush has a following just like Jerry Springer has /had. How much drama can we get these people to follow. I for one feel there are other ways to express yourself,ignorance should not be one of them….
As every health insurance policy already must cover pregnancy, the contraception requirement actually LOWERED the cost of health insurance.
If you and I have been covered by the same health insurer at a time you and your wife had children, I have helped pay for that pregnancy and have helped pay for your sex life. So much for you paying your own way.
A decent man would condemn Rush for his words of malice.
she was not advocating government to pay for her contraception. Georgetown pays for contraception for its staff, yet the health care coverage Ms. Fluke, and her friend for whom she spoke, were required to purchase did not cover contraception, even if it was prescribed for other use. Her friend had her ovary removed, covered by her PURCHASED insurance. It would not cover the pills prescribed to prevent the cysts that were the medical issue.
Here is something to think about; Healthy people cost less than sick people. Preventive medicine works to keep people healthy. Healthy people are more productive than sick people and take less time off from work. Therefore, it is in the interest of the employer to provide an insurance policy which keeps people healthy.
Russ,
Mitt Romney’s company Bain Capital owns Clear Channel Communications – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications
@Mr. Irwin: actually there has been quite an outcry about Limbaugh’s behavior/actions. This is why more than half a dozen of Rush’s major sponsors have withdrawn their advertising dollars. Their facebook pages and websites have been bombarded with requests that they stop supporting him lest they face declining customer support.
Seven advertisers have pulled their ads and two radio stations have canceled Mr. Limbaugh’s program.
Some sites are reporting as many as 28 advertisers have curtailed their relationship with Limbaugh. May be an exaggeration: time will tell.
I am waiting for the GOP to distance themselves from Rush. If they don’t, they have lost 52% of the electorate for good. And it’s about time I might add.
George Will gave them the opportunity to join him in criticizing Mr. Limbaugh. No one spoke up. The silence was deafening.
Those may be local advertisers. The seven, maybe now 8, that I mentioned were national advertisers.
You can make the argument but it has no legal merit. This is not even a close call.
Also, churches don’t HAVE to organize as 501(c)3’s, they choose to, and are subject to many restrictions if they do so.
I do not see the point you are trying to make. Churches are one tax exempt entity. IRC 501(c)(3) (non-profit) corporations are another. Because one may or may not be the other does not seem to have much relevance here.
Check the Supreme Court precedent. The power to tax involves the power to destroy. The argument has ample legal merit.
That’s not to say any tax constitutes an attempt to destroy.
As is common on here, you suggest checking “Supreme Court precedent” without citing the Supreme Court precedent you believe supports your position. There are no precedents that will help you here. Exemptions, deductions and tax rates are creatures of statute. Nothing in the Constitution prevents the government from taxing churches. There is no legal merit to the argument. Just saying it will not make it so. If you actually knew the law, you wouldn’t even suggest it.
Russ Irwin – Do you really want to start this conversation? You do know, of course, that if you remove Rush for saying what he said, you’d also have to remove just about every left wing pundent that is on radio or TV. Olbermann, Maddow, Maher, Schultz, for starters. Then who would you listen to?
Rush messed up. He knows it. He’s apologized for it. Where’s the left wing love and forgiveness?
Two things EP. Schultz was removed for a one week period last year for something he said on the public airwaves by his employer. And I don’t agree with 95% of what Schultz says on a daily basis but I listen to hear what the far left is saying and thinking.
The second thing is we (as a people) only have a say on what is carried on the public airwaves. What is on satelite radio, pay to view TV, etc…is not considered a public air wave and is not subject to the same regulation.
Rush didn’t break any of the public airwave rules. He just flew off the handle about the subject at hand. He’s human. He’s passionate. And in the context of his remarks, for the most part, he was right. It was just his selection of words that got him in trouble.
That said, Limbaugh is probably hated by the liberal left more than any other person in the world. This unmitigated hatred is a result of his being right on so many issues, and so powerfully influencial to so many. The left has been looking for a chance to dump on him for a long time. He gave them the opportunity, and now they’re going full bore.
He’ll survive. He always does.
What was he right about?
His sentiment apparently. The “selection of words…got him in trouble.” So essentially, you can lie and degrade a person all you want, as long as you measure your words appropriately.
I agree…He is human. He is passionate. But it wasn’t just a spontaneous utterance. One day…maybe. Second and Third day? How do you fly off the handle for three days?
Let me know when it is okay to call your daughter(s) and wife by vicious names and spend time over three days questioning their moral worth. I would never do that, but apparently you think this is a matter of small moment.
I listen to Schultz for much the same reasons. And “Randy” Rhodes as well. I regularly hear them say things equally disgusting as what Limbaugh said. I find them to be disgusting human beings, devoid of honor, honesty, and lacking in character. (I can add Maher, Obberman, and a few others to that list.) Their rants are not just over the top like many of Rush’s, but often are deliberately misleading and even outright lies. One day Rhodes interviewed Ron Paul on the air and listening to her analysis and description of what Paul had said, only minutes before, left me wondering if she had actually talked to him at all. Obviously she had not listened to anything he had said, I also find Rush to be someone I would not associate with for similar reasons. Although I would find all of them interesting to speak with one on one.
Let me know when I can call your daughter(s) and wife vicious names over the course of three days.
You have as much class as Rush. Or Maher. Or….
Mr. Irwin,
While I was easily able to find hundreds of articles about
Limbaugh’s comment about Mz Fluke I was unable to find an actual transcript so
I could put the comment in context. I suspect that the only place I would find
the context is on his web site and I cannot afford to subscribe to it.
The closest I could come was from “The Daily Caller” which
had “What does it say about the college co-ed
[Sandra] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says
she must be paid to have sex?” Limbaugh said. “What does that make her? It
makes her a sl*t, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to
have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She
wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make
us? We’re the pimps — the johns. No, that’s right — pimp is not the right
word.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/29/limbaugh-georgetown-co-ed-wanting-to-be-paid-for-sex-a-slut-a-prostitute-video/#ixzz1oOEPMuzn
Has anyone here read the bio of Ms. Sandra Fluke? Undergrad university student who advocated for transgender operations to be paid for by insurance companies, then on to Georgetown Catholic University to attend law school where she is an acitivist for women’s reproductive rights and past president of Law Students for Reproductive Rights; found by the liberals in Congress to speak before elitist Democrats in a mock hearing, since it had been determined that she was not qualified to replace the pastor who “decided” not to testify before the formal Congressional hearing.
Rush Limbaugh apologized, but the context of his words seem to be taken out of context by many who want to see conservative talk radio taken off the air. Ms. Fluke was willing to be used to openly state her lifestyle and lie about the cost of contraception, as well as her age(she is 30) so the inflation listed by her was simply referred to by Mr. Limbaugh via the satire that has been typical of him for many years. How outraged was anyone here when Sarah Palin and her family were attacked with so much hatred and vile language? How about other conservative women who have been directly called names? But, the liberals rely on the hope that their lies, when told often enough, will be accepted as truth.
Does anyone on the right have a comment on the merits of Fluke’s argument or despite the backlash, are you just going to stick to character attacks and critiques?
I listened to her comments. In a nutshell, she was advocating for free contraceptives because the high cost of attending Georgetown, most of which we admitted was being paid for through assistance of some sort, was causing hardship. She talked about a friend that was embarrassed because she could not pay for her contraceptives that she thought were covered through the university. She mentioned the hardship of having to work a whole summer in order to afford three years worth of contraceptives.
She neglected to mention that if she had a perscription for contraceptives based on heavy menstral cycles or other medical needs, that they would be covered. She also forgot to specify which kind of contraceptives she was seeking for free.
But, when it was all said and done, and Rush ranted and then apologized, she threw his apology back in his face. That didn’t help her cause one bit.
Most contraceptives are issued through prescriptions, even when used to treat illnesses not directly related to contraception. The ruling in 2000 by the EEOC determined that if an insurance policy covered any prescription, it must cover contraceptives. That is the simple fact of the matter. Sandra Fluke’s testimony was to state that her insurance policy would not cover contraception.
The hearing before congress led by Darrell Issa was a sham in that it only dealt with one side of the argument. They refused to allow witnesses who, like Ms. Fluke, would have argued for the coverage of contraceptives. Therefore the democrats held a hearing to get the other side’s point of view.
When the ruling was first issued by the EEOC in 2000, and for 12 years after, the republicans ignored the issue. Now that it is an election year, the republicans have decided to make a big stink to try to energize the conservative voter. That is all it is, a republican talking point to garner votes. Had they really been concerned they would have done something during the 8 years of Bush’s presidency.
No, she spoke about the necessity for contraceptives to be included under healthcare plans that are paid for. That’s not “free contraceptives,” so stop distorting the issue.
What is hilarious is how you think you can pass off lies as “the truth.” You clearly didn’t listen to her comments because you’d know she spoke at length about the interrogations and denials of coverage regarding medically necessary prescriptions. She spoke about how it isn’t as easy as stating you have a medical need.
She wasn’t seeking free contraceptives, so stop with that lie already.
I was paraphrasing. Would you rather I cut and paste the transcript of her testimony?
You were distorting. I’d rather you actually read the testimony than parroting the fringe-right sources you consume.
Yes!
Ok. Here is it in its entirety (since you missed a few lines):
Hearing on women’s reproductive health and contraception before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held on Feb. 23, 2012
Transcript of testimony by Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University Law School, a private Jesuit institution:
“Leader [Nancy] Pelosi, members of Congress, good morning. And thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and for allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.
Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law student, testifies before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on the importance of contraceptive coverage for students and employees at religious-affiliated institutions. Last week, Fluke was denied the opportunity to speak before the House Oversight Committee hearing on women’s reproductive health. Instead, an all-male panel of religious leaders testified on why they should be allowed to deny women contraceptive coverage. SOURCE: C-Span.org
“My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I’m also a past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. And I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them so much for being here today.
(Applause)
“We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.
“I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens.
“We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.
“Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions.
“When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of
“And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.
“And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.
“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.
“Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
“And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s just not true.
“Women’s health clinic provide a vital medical service, but as the Guttmacher Institute has definitely documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.
“How can Congress consider the [Rep. Jeff] Fortenberry (R-Neb.), [Sen. Marco] Rubio (R-Fla.) and [Sen. Roy] Blunt (R-Mo.) legislation to allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to de-fund those very same clinics?
“These denial of contraceptive coverage impact real people.
“In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.
“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.
“When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.
“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
“After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.
“I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’
“Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.
“On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.
“Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.
“As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’
“Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.
“Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were
“One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.
“Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.
“Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.
“I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.
“Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.
“One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.
“As one other student put it: ‘This policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’
“These are not feelings that male fellow student experience and they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.
“In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school?
“We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.
“We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of ‘cura personalis‘ – to care for the whole person – by meeting all of our medical needs.
“We expected that when we told our universities of the problem this policy created for us as students, they would help us.
“We expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university.
“We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere.
“And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
“Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for the access to the health care we need.
“The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and the universities appreciate the modifications to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.
“Thank you very much.”
Transcript of Ms Fluke’s speech
Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you
for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf
of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive
coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at
Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law
Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow
LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them
for being here today.
Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that
this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of
Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception
coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial,
emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated
hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We
are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care
needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment
addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and
Jesuit institutions.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women
affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I
hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a
religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and
medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am
here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over
$3,000 during (the three years attending) law school.
EJ why do you bother to twist facts when they can so easily be checked?
Didn’t help her cause? LOL
Yeah, like we should be surprised that someone with that background would want to speak at a Congressional hearing. Your point?
About 75% of what you just said is either simply not true or is couched in words to make something quite ordinary sound sinister. Might I remind you that conservatives have several universities devoted solely to teaching young conservatives to do exactly what Ms Fluke is doing; working in the political arena to express a political view point and trying to change the laws.
Explain how this is somehow evil and sinister when done by a Democrat but honorable and acceptable when done by a conservative. Are you trying to say that the only people that get to participate in politics are conservatives?
Whether they are trying to say that or not, it is certainly the impression they leave in their posts. Most believe in the one party system, which is why I have on occasion compared them to the communists, nazis, and other forms of dictatorship. They will sometimes say they believe in the two party system as long as it doesn’t include democrats, which is double speak.
Why does Rush survive? Because the people who like him are like him. They think that way. Scary, huh?
Not true. People that like him are not like him.
So WJ Clinton has his own real life issue going on in the oval office but all those that like him must be like him? C’mon. Now that would be scary, huh?
I thought them dems were objective? Thanks for clarifying.
His base is locked in perpetual adolescence.
I have been listening to Rush for 20+ years.
The guy has a huge amount of talent. It is amazing that he has such a loyal listener base. Unlike many here, I do agree with many points he makes about conservatives, the tea party, smaller government, our President, national healthcare, all the hot buttons. I have heard him be objective, slam my buddy GW, the republican party and on, and on, and on.
I forgave the painkillers, I forgave the various addictions, the deception with the viagra, I forgave many other foolish comments he has made that were out of line. I still enjoyed his point of view and couldn’t agree more with many of his positions.
All that said, this talk crossed the line. He lost me as a listener for good, PERIOD. He lost control of his comments and some of them were so disgusting I dont even want to think about it. If other people want to listen to him and defend him go right ahead but I am done, dun, and freakin doon. I don’t want to be associated with the guy.
He is a very wealthy man that will survive this but now that he has revealed himself as a pig doesn’t mean all his republican base will follow.
Sorry Rush. Time to own up.
I too listened to Rush a little last year,I can’t remember what he was talking about but it turned me off from listening to him.Extremism in any voice will never work,we need balance.We need sides to give and take.Until that happens,America will never return to it’s glory.
WELL SAID!!!
Limerick Ode To Rush Limbaugh
By Madeleine Begun Kane
A rebuke for Rush Limbaugh at last,
As his smears leave good people aghast.
He’s lost ads — it’s no fluke –
Even managed to spook
Those who always sucked up in the past.
It’s odd–I just listened to Rush on my way home to lunch. I didn’t hear any blank dead air when he broke away for commercials. The truth is all the “outrage” is doing nothing. Rush is still on the air, still making some great points, and he still has a full slate of advertisers who are using their dollars to support the stations that carry his show.
In a week or two, Fluke will be a memory. But Rush will go on.
Don’t give up your day job.
I forgot, you are a former teacher. Never have had a real job. How much are you getting paid by Soros to troll on here?
In reply to Russ Irwin, I am with you, I think Rush Limbaugh is an overweight blow hard who, if he had any shame at all, wouldn’t show his disgusting face on tv or pollute the airwaves with his voice. He is a drug addict nothing more nothing less.
If Rush is the unofficial voice of the GOP, then Bill Mahr is the unofficial voice of the Democrats.
In fact, neither is true. These sort of people represent only themselves and are paid to be controversial. If you don’t like what they have to say, don’t listen to them.
No, if I had to pick one I would say Jon Stewart is the unofficial voice of the Democrats.
Mr. Limbaugh begins every program by saying he is the voice of conservatives. Perhaps you don’t think he is, but certainly Mr. Limbaugh, the legislators he has cowed into silence and his “ditto heads” consider him the voice of Republicans.
He is the id of the Republicans who has caused their egos and superegos to shrivel away to near nothingness.
Mr. Shook, I would vote for a moldy Pop-Tart before I’d vote for the man currently infesting the Oval Office.
Mega dittos, April.
I gather you’re for Newt then.
Newt as a moldy pop tart. Too funny on several levels. Good one.!
Please do. I am advocating republicans vote for Gingrich or Paul. That way the money from the vote buyers, ah, I mean contributors, to the republicans, will have to stretch their dollars thin. It will make it that much more of a cake walk for Obama to win.
Why Does Rush Survive? Do we have a double standard here? Just curious. I certainly do not support or condone his comments, but I have to wonder about those so quick to jump on him. I don’t have any recollection of your jumping on your liberal friends when they threw equally sick comments at conservatives. The hypocrisy has gone just a bit too far.
Rush has been jumped on for years. Apparently you’ve chosen to ignore that. It’s a viable question. Why does this hate monger continue to survive?
Mr. Irwin – I agree with you. The ethics of responsible broadcasting with integrity have been lost.
I only see Limbaugh when his idiotic rants are re-broadcast by a hungry babble of cable and network stations tripping over their antennas to repeat his crude remarks. The same holds true with commentators and politicians. A Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum flip at the president is “news” for 24 hours.
Imus got his pink slip for insulting school girls. He was quickly picked up by Murdoch’s station, where he’ll continue to mumble his jumbo forever. He was paid by his original station as a staff member. Limbaugh is a multi-millionaire. And, like Beck, and others, they, for some unexplained reason are classified by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) as – hold on to your hate- “journalists.”
If you complain to the FCC they will write back and tell you Mr. Beck as a “journalist” is able to say anything he pleases, as guaranteed by his rights under the First Amendment. The same reasoning would, I presume hold true for Limbaugh.
Limbaugh’s strained “apology” was, as Ron Paul said – just to help him retain his advertisers.
The credibility and integrity of broadcasters on some of today’s airwaves is abominable. Your right to say anything should be tempered with honesty and good judgement. Limbaugh and his clique have neither.
Journalist???? I thought they both claimed to be entertainers.
Not according to the FCC.
Russ Irwin,
Who allows Rush Limbaugh the ability to “blather away” continually? The first ****ing amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that’s what. And yes, that was necessary, you need to wake the heck up.
You don’t have to listen, you don’t have to agree, but you can’t just shut him up. Violating the first amendment is something we should never ever think of doing, simply because of where that could lead. This isn’t a Communist country… Yet. But thanks to free speech, this place is fast becoming one.
That’s a rather strong reaction to someone who is only stating an opinion. I think that what Rush does is more like commerce than First Amendment protected free speech. Let the market decide whether he stays or goes.
Exactly, let the market decide. Not some court room or legislative body. That is what scares me, people actually suggesting that the government should shut him up. I wouldn’t suggest that, not even for a Communist radio host.
While attempting to make a case against a tax exemption for presumably non-profit religious institutions, John Lyman cites the first part of the First Amendment while neglecting to mention the second part of it. The two parts taking together should read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF…” (emphasis in mine) That second part is the reason why religious institutions may not be taxed. Taxation would in effect negatively affect or restrict these institutions from exercising their freedom. One may disagree about the appropriateness of the religious tax exemption, but not on First Amendment grounds, which is quite clear from a reading of the First Amendment.
One could argue that the founders were talking about the church proper, not businesses run by the Church. The Catholic church owns more property in New York City than any entity except the city itself. Should all this property be tax exempt? Should city police protect this property? should city firefighters respond to fires on these properties? Should these properties be allowed to use municiple utilities??
Just wondering who is suppose to pay for all this religion?
I believe the property you referred to are owned by Catholic institutions, not necessarily by the Church itself. For example, Notre Dame University is a Catholic institution that identifies itself with the Church but is neither owned nor operated by the Church. In any case properties owned by Catholic institutions in NYC are not taxed simply because their owners are non-profit organizations, just like the secular hospital down the road from me is non-profit and not subject to taxation.
Russ Irwin
The people Imus insulted were African American. Sandy Fluke is not…. Get it?
@John Lyman:
Here! Here! I’ve thought the same thing about tax-exempt churches for years. There’s a reason the Catholic church is one of the richest institutions on the planet (or was before the legal bills started piling up). Perhaps they should be granted exemptions for demonstrated acts of community service, but they should certainly pay income and real-estate taxes just like any other business.
AND, the whole church-insurance-contraception-Limbaugh flurry is ridiculous. Employers should not be allowed to dictate the application of health insurance coverage any more than they’re allowed to tell employees how to spend their paychecks. If insurance is part of employee compensation, then it’s up to the employee to decide how to use it. Employers can negotiate dollars, but nothing else.