Day by Day

Monday, March 05, 2012

Switching Channels

Let's leave aside the debate on whether Sandra Fluke is a slut or a whore for a bit.  Isn't the real outrage this:  That the government is perfectly happy to shit all over the 1st Amendment regarding the freedom of religion in order to advance is socialist goals?

Let Sandra Fluke be a slut and a whore both - she's exactly the kind of girl that a very young Ragin' Dave would have loved to know, given that she seems to be the kind of cheap, meaningless, cum receptacle that I enjoyed in my early twenties.  The real tragedy is that she's also a Useful Idiot, pushing the statist agenda, and lying her ass off to do so. 

And the Drive-By Media, the Democrat Media Propaganda Complex, is complicit in her lies, and pushing their bias forward with every lie they re-broadcast. 

Think about this for a minute, will you?  The Catholic Church isn't trying to ban contraceptives.  They're not trying to change any laws.  They simply want to be allowed to practice their faith, which does NOT include paying for contraception for anybody.  And the Obama-worshiping Media is in full blown hysteria mode over that.  "OH NOES!  TEH REICH-WING WANTS TO STEAL OUR LADYPARTS!  STAY OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS YOU WINGNUTS!"

Hey assholes - we didn't want to be in your bedrooms.  You're bringing us into your bedrooms when you start demanding that we pay for your birth control! 

So stop allowing the media and the Left to control the narrative.  The next time someone starts babbling about how the Right wants to ban sex altogether, question how asking people to pay for their own birth control is akin to the Spanish Inquisition.

2 comments:

Goober said...

I am simply aghast at how far off the rails the conservatives have allowed this discussion to veer. They are being played like finely tuned fiddles – Rush is no exception. The liberals WANT you to call them sluts, Rush. They WANT you to question how much birth control you 'really need" because it forwards their narrative that you are trying to deny them access to that - that you are a busy-body blue-nosed reich-winger that wants to cast aspersions about women's liberation. That is not the root of the discussion. The root of the discussion is simple:

1.) Birth control is readily and cheaply available to women today. Any claim that it is expensive in any way whatsoever is an outright lie. Target, for instance, hands out birth control pills for $9 a month. Since the insurance companies in question actually DO cover the gynecological exams necessary to get said prescription, you are literally only out $9 a month for birth control. Condoms are handed out for free pretty much anywhere 9especially on college campuses). My local Walgreens even has a "grab basket" just inside their foyer (which I thought odd since they are competing with themselves here, but whatever).

2.) You are not being "denied" access to birth control simply because you can't get someone else to pay for it. That is a distortion and a lie. The only thing you are being denied is the ability to live whatever life you want to live at no cost to you. The argument that birth control is somehow special holds no water - if you can argue that others should pay for your birth control, you can just as easily claim that taxpayers have to buy you a boat, and that not buying you a boat is "denying you access to a boat, which is a univeral right. Why don't you reich wingers stay out of my recreational life?"

3.) It is not the place of the Federal Government to dictate to private companies what they can and cannot include or dis-include in their services. Take religion out of the argument all together, and you still have an extremely valid point with this one. A government that can dictate to private companies what they should and should not propvide for goods and services has a name - the name is "fascist" and I'm not using it in the typical "fascist as an insult" way that people use that term nowadays. i'm using it in the "that is literally the textbook definition of the term" way. Everything within the state, nothing otuside of it.

4.) It is a violation of the religious faith of certain individuals to pay for these servcies, so forcing everyone to pay for them is a violation of certain individual's religious freedom. Note well that when given religious freedom, and "reproductive freedom from having to pay for stuff" that only one of those is metnioned quite specifically in our country's charter, so you tell me which one trumps the other when they come to disagree...

It is a 4-part argument. These are the only points worth making, and you win the argument with a slam dunk every time if you make them. It is that simple, conservatives. I am watching this with a detached feeling of horror that they are allowing themselves to be played like this, being drawn into discussions of "sluttiness" and "how much birth control one person needs" and all that.

(Oh, to clear up any confusion, I do not self-identify as a conservative. I'm not sure I am allowed to with my stauch anti-social conservatism stances. Not that I don't live my life as a social conservative, I just don't think I have the right to demand that others do likewise...)

DANEgerus said...

We're a long 8 months from the election. I really don't think this is a winning issue for Democrats because the debate is doing permanent damage to the 60% voting share Obama had amongst Catholics.

also... Everyone missed the real head-fake. Why should only Catholics be exempt? What about people that just don't want to pay for other people's choices?

I actually don't care what Sandra Fluke does, I just feel no obligation to pay for someone more affluent than myself, just because she can steal from me with the power of the US Government.