like, viagra?Jay wrote:
They should cover other voluntary health items too then right? Tattoo removal, breast implants, calf implants, vasectomies etc.13urnzz wrote:
he's not losing advertisers because he called her a slut. he's losing them because he went on to say that she should post her sextapes to the internet, because if "we" pay for her contraception, "we" should get our monies worth.Turquoise wrote:
On the other hand, Rush did basically put himself in a vulnerable position by choosing to call her a slut.
one of the most unintended, brilliant moves obama has made was to mandate contraception. women voters are well aware that the little blue pill is covered, but to see the right react both religiously and fiscally conservatively in regard to contraception just drew a sharper contrast amongst a big block of voters.
they should cover flesh lights for macbeth's sexual health.13urnzz wrote:
like, viagra?Jay wrote:
They should cover other voluntary health items too then right? Tattoo removal, breast implants, calf implants, vasectomies etc.13urnzz wrote:
he's not losing advertisers because he called her a slut. he's losing them because he went on to say that she should post her sextapes to the internet, because if "we" pay for her contraception, "we" should get our monies worth.
one of the most unintended, brilliant moves obama has made was to mandate contraception. women voters are well aware that the little blue pill is covered, but to see the right react both religiously and fiscally conservatively in regard to contraception just drew a sharper contrast amongst a big block of voters.
meh
the hookers from your homeland got that covered
the hookers from your homeland got that covered
you are one creepy motherfuckerMacbeth wrote:
meh
the hookers from your homeland got that covered
Exactly. Shouldn't be covered by insurance.13urnzz wrote:
like, viagra?Jay wrote:
They should cover other voluntary health items too then right? Tattoo removal, breast implants, calf implants, vasectomies etc.13urnzz wrote:
he's not losing advertisers because he called her a slut. he's losing them because he went on to say that she should post her sextapes to the internet, because if "we" pay for her contraception, "we" should get our monies worth.
one of the most unintended, brilliant moves obama has made was to mandate contraception. women voters are well aware that the little blue pill is covered, but to see the right react both religiously and fiscally conservatively in regard to contraception just drew a sharper contrast amongst a big block of voters.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That does not make her a public figure. Her personal life does not interest anyone. She was never placed under public awareness for anything other than testifying, which does not make her anyone near the status of celebrity, politician or someone with a base public followers.Macbeth wrote:
Rush didn't make her famous. She showed up on the top 3 news blogs (who are also the top blogs in the world) a few days before Rush made his comments. Drudge (the news blog that broke the Monica Lewinsky story), Huffington post (an asset of AOL) and Hotair were all commenting on her testimony. Rush just picked up on something that was going around on the internet already.
What Rush tried to do, is silence her through personal attacks based on zero evidence. He called her a prostitute.
The only defense against libel is either speaking truthfully which he didn't.
Presenting the speech as so far out of the realms of believability that no one would believe it true regardless, which he didn't.
He could claim it was just his opinion and presented as such, but certainly not after issuing the apology he did. The genie is put of the bottle now. He could have said well it's just my opinion I'm sticking with it, but he didn't.
That just leaves the defense "well she is a public figure" which of course she isn't. She has the same rights as a private citizen.
If you believe that testifying leaves you open to baseless personal attacks, you believe that people like her can be effectively silenced through libel and mudraking and intimidation, there will be nobody willingto testify.
IVF?Jay wrote:
Exactly. Shouldn't be covered by insurance.13urnzz wrote:
like, viagra?Jay wrote:
They should cover other voluntary health items too then right? Tattoo removal, breast implants, calf implants, vasectomies etc.
If you can't accept that she put her life in the public arena by testifying about her sex life in front of congress then there is nothing I can do for you.
On an interesting side note: I've been looking at some legal blogs about this case and besides the fact they all agree me (confirmation bias, fuck yeah) they all mention the Supreme court case Sullivan vs New York Times. I was actually planning on starting a book about that later today since it was assigned for a class I had to take this semester. Too bad I didn't read it sooner. I could have been dick swinging all over this thread.
On an interesting side note: I've been looking at some legal blogs about this case and besides the fact they all agree me (confirmation bias, fuck yeah) they all mention the Supreme court case Sullivan vs New York Times. I was actually planning on starting a book about that later today since it was assigned for a class I had to take this semester. Too bad I didn't read it sooner. I could have been dick swinging all over this thread.
What kind of defense does he have when he has apologised for the remarks?Macbeth wrote:
If you can't accept that she put her life in the public arena by testifying about her sex life in front of congress then there is nothing I can do for you.
On an interesting side note: I've been looking at some legal blogs about this case and besides the fact they all agree me (confirmation bias, fuck yeah) they all mention the Supreme court case Sullivan vs New York Times. I was actually planning on starting a book about that later today since it was assigned for a class I had to take this semester. Too bad I didn't read it sooner. I could have been dick swinging all over this thread.
His apology means jackshit once the case gets in front of a judge who is going to look at the precedents set by other free speech cases. The only worth the apology has is in the social/media arena.
You'd need to get that dick checked though as I'm sure you've got at least a couple STI's from those Taiwanese hookers.Macbeth wrote:
If you can't accept that she put her life in the public arena by testifying about her sex life in front of congress then there is nothing I can do for you.
On an interesting side note: I've been looking at some legal blogs about this case and besides the fact they all agree me (confirmation bias, fuck yeah) they all mention the Supreme court case Sullivan vs New York Times. I was actually planning on starting a book about that later today since it was assigned for a class I had to take this semester. Too bad I didn't read it sooner. I could have been dick swinging all over this thread.
that case dealt with a public official. rush is not. I think you might want to bring up the hustler v falwell to better illustrate your point. however, that case deals with the right to satirize public figures. what rush said is very difficult to say that it was satire. he not only called her slut, he said she should have sex tapes in the public domain. that was more than just an opinion since she said that since she uses tax payer funds to practice contraception, taxpayers need to have access to her sxual encountersMacbeth wrote:
If you can't accept that she put her life in the public arena by testifying about her sex life in front of congress then there is nothing I can do for you.
On an interesting side note: I've been looking at some legal blogs about this case and besides the fact they all agree me (confirmation bias, fuck yeah) they all mention the Supreme court case Sullivan vs New York Times. I was actually planning on starting a book about that later today since it was assigned for a class I had to take this semester. Too bad I didn't read it sooner. I could have been dick swinging all over this thread.
Tu Stultus Es
It shouldn't.AussieReaper wrote:
Freedom of speech doesn't cover character assassinations does it?
This concept of being free to assassinate the character of 'public people' and drag every aspect of their private lives into the open seems to have begun with McCarthyism, as a means of silencing the free speech of people who the govt takes a dislike to. Or maybe Hoover, but he/she wasn't so public about it.
The concept of being free to assassinate the character of any private person who makes any aspect of their life 'public', by being distantly related to a celebrity, speaking publicly or setting foot outside their home during daylight, seems to have been invented by the Murdoch press as a means of making money and gaining a position of power - see the current news on the depths of the hacking and how much control Murdoch now has over the British Police and govt for example.
If anyone believes its OK to use 'free speech' as a tool to silence legitimate free speech then they're a tool.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Everyones opinion is equally valid and correct. No one should ever be told they are wrong. That just inhibits free speech.
Thats the gist, yes? Except you do it every fucking day.
Thats the gist, yes? Except you do it every fucking day.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Have you learned anything about libel yet Jay?
The problem is, you're wrong every fucking day.Jay wrote:
Everyones opinion is equally valid and correct. No one should ever be told they are wrong. That just inhibits free speech.
Thats the gist, yes? Except you do it every fucking day.
People are entitled to opinions, they aren't necessarily right or wrong.
Your position seems to be:
You're against people holding or expressing opinions you don't agree with.
You're for people in positions of power insulting, abusing, personally attacking and generally shouting down anyone whose opinion they don't like.
On the plus side I'm steadily learning what it means to be a 'Libertarian'.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
If everyone would just be nice, this wouldn't be an issue.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
If everyone would just be nice, this wouldn't be an issue.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/04/09 … onception/A new bill up for a vote in Arizona could mandate that pregnancy be considered to have started up to two weeks before conception may have actually occurred.
The nuance was introduced on the eighth page of H.B. 2036, a piece of legislation that seeks to modify the amount of time a woman has to legally get an abortion by using the woman’s last menstrual cycle as a means of defining the beginning of what is being called the “gestational age.”
“‘Gestational age’ means the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” the document reads.
“‘Gestational age’ means the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” the document reads.
H.B. 2036 is a bill that deals entirely with defining the intricate legalities of abortion in the state.
At present, a woman must have an abortion performed within 20 weeks of pregnancy, if it is to be done so legally in Arizona.
If passed, the law could take away up to two weeks of available time for a pregnant woman to get an abortion
It was signed into law. So since life begins two weeks before contraception a woman loses two weeks of time she had to an abortion.
Last edited by Macbeth (2012-04-13 13:14:39)
Life begins before contraception now huh...awesome logic, that. I guess the milk out in that cow's udder, the water in an aquifer somewhere and the beans/sugar on my bench are actually a flat white...Macbeth wrote:
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/04/09/arizona-bill-says-pregnancy-begins-during-last-menstrual-period-before-conception/
It was signed into law. So since life begins two weeks before contraception a woman loses two weeks of time she had to an abortion.
Last edited by Pubic (2012-04-13 14:12:08)
Some Americans are so fucking daft.
skeet skeet
Tu Stultus Es
"its just that backwards state not all of us"
If your girlfriend misses a period because she's been on the pill does that mean she was considered pregnant for some of that time?Pubic wrote:
Life begins before contraception now huh...awesome logic, that. I guess the milk out in that cow's udder, the water in an aquifer somewhere and the beans/sugar on my bench are actually a flat white...Macbeth wrote:
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/04/09/arizona-bill-says-pregnancy-begins-during-last-menstrual-period-before-conception/
It was signed into law. So since life begins two weeks before contraception a woman loses two weeks of time she had to an abortion.
Does that mean a woman can get on public transport and demand a seat when full because she will conceive in two weeks from now?
I honestly can't believe the logic behind this. We're in 2012 ffs!!
who are you quoting therejord wrote:
"its just that backwards state not all of us"
Tu Stultus Es