Hi rozemist, Rush Limbaughrepresents the worst in current American politics. He is demeaning and divisive. When criticized for his words or actions he feigns innocence and tries to turn the tables by accusing his critics of not having a sense of humor. This was his tactic in the situation that you describe. He claimed that Democrats lacked a sense of humor about his comments. Like calling a woman a "sl*ut" or "prostitute" simply for voicing and standing up for her own beliefs is such a knee-slapping joke. Even more offensive is his suggestion that her championing the idea of insurance companies covering contraceptive costs somehow makes Ms. Fluke hyper-sexual and that she "owes" the American taxpayer the opportunity to view sex tapes of her, so that the public gets its money's worth. Yeah, that is a real laugh riot, Limbaugh. Perhaps he also believes that women who have mammograms paid for by their insurance companies also have the "obligation" to the American taxpayer to make "Girls Gone Wild"-like tapes where they flash their breasts. After all, doesn't the taxpayer ultimately foot the bill for these tests, too? His argument and stance is just ridiculous and manipulative. I would also add sexist, since he doesn't suggest that any men who have Viagra prescriptions covered should be making their own sex tapes. Sincerely, Karen
What you see from the dope addict is frustration in the fact that the conservative message is not getting through, so he must bring the conversation down to the level of the audience. Hence the vile name calling.
You need to keep in mind the case that the brain trust of the conservatives were trying to paint was a picture that President Obama was going after religious freedoms, but what the people heard was women's rights are under siege. We heard the candidates from the GOP raise the flag that religion was under attack, although Sanstrum has always said it, and still the American people kept hearing - now they are going after women's rights!!!
Then you had Rep Darrell Issa (R) from southern Cal (who is under consideration for ethics investigation) who holds hearings on the insurance - contraception mandate that the president just issued. Very one sided, and exclusionary of any women witnesses, and all that the people heard was - now they are going after women's rights!!!
Then when that lady who was pulled from testifying was lionized in the press, the addict did what he usually does, which is attack the message and the messenger. We have seen it all of the time, everything that is not conservative is vile and evil, so he attacked her as he would any women who talk of sex, he called her a "s*l*u*t." And all of the people heard - now they are going after women!! This comes from Christianity where Mary Magdalene's role was changed from trusted disciple, to a prostitute by Pope Gregory. We can't have women in positions saying contrary things to what the men are saying.
The message just isn't getting out correctly, and it is not being received by the masses correctly. This stuff used to work for the conservatives, but people have become desensitized to the intent of the rhetoric, and are now seemingly listening to the words, and they are hearing how vile they actually are.
He will still have listeners, much like Beck, and he will continue to loose sponsors, much like Beck did, but their credibility is going away quickly. After all, if you still support the addict, then you obviously agree that this woman is a s*l*u*t. We can't forgive him for a slip of the tongue because he said derogatory things about this lady three days in a row.
There's family values for you in action.
If this "person" believes that is humor,just what exactly would real humor be like coming from him.
What a idiotic excuse to say"where's the humor at in it"
I get the idea that among many other things that Limbaugh does not hold women in very high esteem ,he seems to have a very poor opinion of them.
Sovereign has I believe pinned it correctly " We can't have women in positions saying contrary things to what the men are saying." It apparently causes him to flip completely out.
I don't like to label things right or left but I have observed very closely that it always seems to be the Republicans that go after women's rights ,why do you suppose that is?
Things that will benefit women seems to bother the heck out of them.
The Birth Control issue,abortions,etc.
I read that in South Dakota A law being considered would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions.A Republican backed legislation,House Bill 1171 a bill sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen.
Clearly the intent of the Bill was to protect pregnant mothers ,or bring a harsher sentence when a unborn child is harmed in a crime ,but unless the Bill is worded more precisely it could be misunderstood.
Then there's the Protect Life Act that could allow a hospital to not perform an abortion even if a woman could die without it.
And here is another gem, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans! But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses.)
Is it any surprise that we have not seen the Republicans come out with a outcry at what Limbaugh just said about the young woman ,they are proving to everyone that this type of behavior doesn't seem so bad ,because it's directed to a woman.
All the programs that they want to cut,or eliminate prove that women seem to have a very low priority in their list of what is or is not important.
Karen I forgot to tell you that your statement "since he doesn't suggest that any men who have Viagra prescriptions covered should be making their own sex tapes" is very funny.
I will have to remember that one to tell my Aunt, she gets so worked up when we talk about Limbaugh.lol
Funny how nothing is heard about this from Republicans or the usual Tea Party types who appear on this blog.
So where are you guys on this, Native? Fredo? Frank? Amy, you're a woman, want to stand behind Rush like you do Franky?
May 2011, MSNBC's Ed Schultz calls talk show host Laura Ingraham a "Right wing sl*t". No blog was created at that time condemning Schultz's remarks. Why? Because Schultz is a liberal, therefore sexist and insensitive comments from the left are tolerated and never condemned by Manteca Bulletin Liberals.
However, if the same word is used by a conservative HE MUST BE FIRED!!! And we must point out that it will probably harm the election for conservatives...but everything will be hunky dory for the libs at election time in spite of Ed Shultz's comments. REALLY? Shameful liberal hypocrisy. This political ploy is transparent, worn out and getting really old. Nice try but no liberal political points will be awarded for posting this disingenuous blog.
We await the responses that will go something like this, "I was unaware of Mr Schultz's comments". Or the ever popular, "I always condemn sexist comments...when they come from a conservative."
Rozemist, Sov, Karen, Larry, we are awaiting your party line response. We are sure that each of you will want to take the time to tell us just how awful Ed Schultz's comments about Laura Ingraham were. Please lay it on real thick now that you are made to uncomfortably remember the vile sexist remarks that were made by a fellow liberal.
Sexist comments generated from the right or the left are both wrong but the Manteca Bulletin Libs must have it shoved under their noses before they will begrudgingly admit it.
I don't remember Ed Shultz calling Ingraham a "right-wing s*@!"(most likely because I don't care much for the liberal media either) but I would condemn it either way, coming from Rush or Shultz.
But Friendo I don't see what your point is. Do you agree that what Rush said was despicable? Do you think he should be fired for it? Do you think Ed should be fired for what he said? See, you just need to be consistent, if you're not consistent then you're just as bad as the liberals who you are saying are not consistent on the issue. If you think Ed should be fired or punished in some other way, then you should think that Rush should be fired or punished in some other way too. Because right now it just looks like you're defending Rush(while putting the mandatory sexism is bad thing at the end) by pointing at liberals and saying "Ed did it too!"
I inserted the link just encase anyone didn't know about this incident.
But I'm sure most everyone already does .
Your bringing it up in no way makes any of us feel uncomfortable ,after all you seem to be the only one having such a strong and uncomfortable reaction to this blog.
I very much remember that a lot of people wanted Shultz fired.He was only suspended.
I don't "ever listen" to Ed Shultz but I condemn what he said as much as I do Limbaugh.
I'm very puzzled as to why Limbaugh has not been suspended ,after all his vile rants went on for 3 days straight against the young student.
Friendo I'm very curious why didn't you create a blog back then yourself regarding this incident ? Now would be a perfect time to do it,it's never too late.
I have seen you often go after blogs that you label "liberal" yet I never see you put a blog out yourself.
You stated by blog was disingenuous,that is your opinion ,and your free to have it.
My blog is Not Liberal,but since Liberal and Conservative is "all that you see" it makes no sense to try and point out that you are missing the subject of the blog ,and that is what you should of focused on.
All I'm seeing is your outcry about what you perceive as a blog going after a Conservative,where is your anger at what the Man said .Capitalist_Nightmare asked you Do you agree Limbaugh was acting despicable? Do you think he should be fired? Did you think Ed Shultz should of been fired and not just suspended? These are all some valid questions that really do have something to do with the subject.
Because your comment gives an appearance that you felt you had to come to the defense of Limbaugh,one would hope this isn't true.
And for the record I'm not offering up a party line response ,contrary to what you said ,I will leave the party line responses to you,that is your area of expertise.
Why do you always refer in your statements to "WE" who is "WE" is it you Friendo and someone else,I find your comments that often throw in that "WE" as peculiar .
It is true that Ed Schults called Ms Ingragham s*l*u*t, and it was no better then, than it is now.
I ask our feigning friend, fredo, where were you at that time, and where was your blog deploring such action on Schultz's part?
Neither case is justified in a civil society, but I think the difference between the two situations are the reactions of those who employ Schultz and the Drug Addict. MSNBC did not hesitate to suspend Schultz for his wrongful actions, the Dopehead's bosses let him go on for three more days insulting and degrading this lady, and all women for that fact, with no reprucusions.
I could go on, but why, in either case it was wrong.
As expected we get the classic response, 'I was unaware of Ed Schultz's comments,...but I was certainly aware of Mr Limbaugh's comments and found it necessary to blog about it'. Yes rozemist I do have a strong reaction to BS.
So rozemist where is your strong reaction against Bill Maher's ongoing misogynistic rants against Sarah Palin, which include calling her a dumb twa* and a cun*?
Just a modicum of intellectual honesty in this blog would be refreshing. Your attempt to politcize this incident has backfired.
Ed Schultz?...Who is Ed Schultz?
Bill Maher?...Who is Bill Maher?
Maybe if we try to look at the world without blinders we can come up with an honset and accurate assessment that is blog worthy.
Well, Fredo, you make a good point, you just lie in the weeds and look to snipe. No one said Schultz was correct, but you can't condem the drug addict that is a leading voice in the destructive and divisive conservatives.
You are so good at feigning indignation.
I ask our disingenuous feinging friend, The Sloven, WHERE WAS YOUR CONDEMNATION OF SCHULTZ'S MISOGYNISTIC COMMENTS OR BILL MAHER'S ONGOING VILE REMARKS? That's right, there were none. However, when the hypocritical opportunity presented itself to lamely bash the opposition, the Holier Than thou part of you jumped all over it. However, you remind us that you would be politically remiss, and must be promted, to remind us all that you condemn left-wing misogynistic comments as well. Yes we believe you...we sure do!
Pointing out and illustrating blog hypocrisy and trying to keep a level playing field is considered to be feigning indignation? Well then, I am guilty as charged!
Here lies one of the issues that we have in this country with the conservatives running amuck, if we don't feign indignation for every little issue like the right does, then we are not expressing our distain properly.
Again, the proper steps were taken swiftly by the organization that Schultz works for. His actions were recognized and immediately addressed, and he came on on his show to express his regret for what he stated towards Ms Ingraham with a public apology to her, and anyone who was offend by his actions, and then expressed his acceptance of his suspension for his wrong action.
I know being from the right, you can't understand this type of action by a person who did something wrong, because it looks like a sign of weakness. All I have seen the dope addict do is try and stem the tide of advertisers leaving his show in droves. He has not attempted to make a sincere apology and looking for forgiveness from the lady or women in general, but rather is going through the motions of getting this behind him.
Its about having integrity, something that is lost on the right.
Here is Ed Schultz's apology:
And here is what comes from the dope addict:
Even the conservative judge who passed a derogatory joke about President Obama had the integrity to apologize directly to Mr Obama, but he also reported himself for investigation for his actions. So where is the sincere apology from the dope head, and why isn't he willing to take the same steps to show his regret?
I can't understand how the MB left completely ignores the ongoing vile sexist attacks coming from Bill Maher leveled at Sarah Palin, yet Mr Limbaugh's comments are scrutinized and he is taken to task for the SAME EXACT behavior that is generated by Schultz and Maher...and strategically IGNORED BY THE LEFT. The anti conservative strategy of feigned indignation and outrage is alive and well in the MB blogs.
Sloven, do you apply the same ridicule to obama's marijuana and cocaine abuse? I am sure you have found a way to downplay and ignore obama's drug abuse. You can probably, in a politically twisted way, justify obamas drug abuse. I wonder what you would call Rush if he admitted cocaine abuse? Disingenuous as always. Liberal offenses go unseen and remain unspoken while conservative offensives will be scrutinized for political gain. Libs lack any credibility when they choose to highlight the errors of others while ignoring the exact same offenses committed by their brethren. SAD, SAD, SAD.
I haven't seen you speak out on the offensive language from the conservative host. I rest my case....
Because it's not necessary. You, Rozemist, Karen, and Larry have already given the conservative host an unfair liberal online blanket party. Why unfair? Because when the exact same offense and even worse comes from the mouth of one of your own...IT IS IGNORED. Since the MB liberals refuse to voluntarily take the initiative and denounce stupidity coming from their own, I'll extend the same liberal courtesy intentionally given to Schultz and Maher by the MB libs and apply it to the conservative host. My abstaining from piling on will help keep the MB online political playing field level and honest.
Why would you ask me to condemn vile conservative remarks while you and others ignore vile left wing remarks and remain silent until you are pushed into denouncing a left wing offender's comments? Rush's condemnation in this MB blog by those who took part was actually very childish in light of the fact that the same behavior is not noted here when the same offenses come from the left.
There you go with that "WE" so I will answer to the you and the other I guess apparently I'm not just responding to you Friendo.
Your statement "as expected "we " get the classic response, 'I was unaware of Ed Schultz's comments,...but I was certainly aware of Mr Limbaugh's comments and found it necessary to blog about it'"
Friendo where is it anywhere that I said I was unaware of what Schultz's said??
You're looking for responses that aren't even there.I didn't give you the response you thought you would get so you run with your own "made up" response.That's "disingenuous" don't you think just a tad!
And talk about someone trying to politicize an incident you are again the expert there,not I.
You don't want to accept an honest answer to your question and so you make up and untruth that will benefit your agenda.And weren't you just speaking about intellectual honesty ,looking at the world without blinders and coming up with an honest and "accurate assessment" ?
I'm not going to wait any longer Friendo for your reaction to Limbaugh ,( it has been given by you in full ,I just wasn't sure at first at what I was hearing )
All I will keep hearing is your thoughts on how the Liberals are this and they are that,nothing substantial about his vile attacks.I do not hear you coming to the defense of this young woman,nor do I hear an outcry of condemnation ,what is the saddest of all is that you continue in my opinion to not speak against what he did because he is of the same Political side as you,and this I find the saddest reason of all.
You said that "Libs lack any credibility when they choose to highlight errors of others while ignoring the exact same offenses committed by their brethren." ,How many times have I had to say it I could care less about the "Liberals" or the "Republicans",but you lost your credibility with me by not stepping up to the defense of this woman but spent most the day defending a Political side.
But ya know this blog was used as a ploy in an attempt to exploit and exaggerate an offense coming from the political right that would remain strictly verboten were the same offense supplied by the political left. By now we have come to expect it...but it is still very disappointing.
Yes Friendo at the end of this day,with all that I have read in this blog,I am very disappointed.And I did not expect it.
Fredo, everyone has already answered your rant on Shultz. He got punished, rightfully, apologized rightly and is now on probation. Rush on the other hand denied he was serious, claiming he was just trying to inject some humor. Yeah, Right! So your response is to add Bill Maher, a comedian. Limbaugh, on the other hand, is considered rightly or wrongly as the head of the Republican Party. Did you notice none of the GOP candidates spoke out against Rush? Like the rest of the Republican leadership, they are scared to say anything. In case you haven't noticed, comedians say outlandish things all the time. Granted Maher is a Liberal Comedian but he is still a comedian. Maher is also anti-religion, all religions, he pokes fun at all religions, that's what he does, once more, he is a comedian. It is silly to inject a comedian into this issue, find someone who is considered the head or leader of the Democrats and try again. The Maher thing is just silly.
Obviously friendo's collective "We" comes from his trio of friends, Me, Myself, and I.
It can't be taken to mean conservatives, because john McCain is speaking out against the conservative standard bearer as well as George Will, John Boehner, and Ron Paul to name a few.
Simply said, Americans see what the radio host stated as wrong, and then there is Friendo.
Mybe you could include this disaster as well
Somehow the basket ball team incident doesn't appear to have hurt him.
Howard Stern coming to Canadian TV
June 6, 2006
TORONTO (CP) - The lewd antics of shock broadcaster Howard Stern are coming to Canadian TV.
Rogers Cable, the country's largest cable carrier, announced Tuesday that effective immediately, Howard TV - Stern's digital channel - will be available on the company's Personal TV On Demand service.
"We understand Howard's fans desire to see the King of All Media on their own time and now that it's available On Demand with Personal TV, our customers can watch what they want when they want," said David Purdy, vice president and TV general manager at Rogers.
This is the young,articulate student who is at the heart of the Limbaugh incident.
I say look at what this woman,in her very young years is trying to do to help other women ,and then look at what Limbaugh has always offered Americans.Quite a contrast I'd say.
She was blocked from testifying at the all male hearing at a recent Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing by Chairman Darrell Issa,she then went on to testify at the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on women's health and contraception.
I guess most of you accept sex outside of marriage as the norm. Of course the teen pregnancy problem has not really let up and unwed mothers are an issue... BUT who is anyone to point that out, shame on him... Yes he went overboard but the issue is real.
SO close your eyes to it and wait , the government will soon be called on to resolve the issue at tax payer expense.. Oh Well..
The teen pregnancy problem hasn't let up? Are you able to breathe in that bubble you live in?
And what basketball incident are you talking about? Are you confusing Stern with Imus?
"I guess most of you accept sex outside of marriage as the norm."
Yes, and I've partaken in it before, deal with it.
"BUT who is anyone to point that out, shame on him..."
BUT she didn't say anything about sex at all in her testimony, she testified before this group that contraception can help in more ways than to just prevent a pregnancy. To which he responded by saying she was a s@!# who sleeps around...But if the issue is teen pregnancy and unwed mothers(Which I don't see as a problem, my mother and father were together for decades before they broke up and they didn't need a piece of paper telling them they loved each other thank you very much), why would you oppose things like birth control pills?
"Due to continued inf*lammatory comments– along w/valuable feedback from clients & team members– QL has suspended ads on Rush Limbaugh program"
Kelly@ Quicken Loans
3 days ago
"Recent comments by Rush Limbaugh do not align w/our values, so we made decision to immediately suspend all advertising on that program."
4 days ago
"Thanks to all of you for your concern and input. We are currently pulling all ads with Rush Limbaugh
4 days ago
"@moughthere As of today, LegalZoom has suspended all advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show."
3 days ago
"We have listened to our customers & have decided to cease our advertising on The Rush Limbaugh Show immediately." facebook.com/Citrix
3 days ago
"We have listened to our customers & have decided to cease our advertising on The Rush Limbaugh Show immediately. " t.co/QFq4Y2C5
3 days ago
Friendo is correct, not one mention of Bill Maher in any of these quotes.
Seems to be some accountability is being demanded and the advertisers are coming across for their consumers loud and clear,some insincere apology is not going to fly this time by Mr Limbaugh.What he said has not been perceived as humor ,his attempt at an excuse did not work.
I wonder how loud his roar is now,he isn't dealing with just some young law student any longer ,I said it in the beginning of all this "it might very well be a sleeping giant has been awakened"
When asked if Sandra Fluke would accept a apology from Mr Limbaugh if he called her,her statement was ""his statements that he made on the air about me have been personal enough, so I'd rather not have a personal phone call from him."
Good for you Ms Fluke,good for you.
Why would anyone in their right mind give the car keys to a 14 year old THEN tell him he has to wait 2 years to drive???
That is the same thing as asking the health insurance to provide contraception (to then see the RATES go up to cover the cost) then esxpect teen to avoid sex until marriage. It should be remembered many on contrception do get pregnant. WHY not send the message to abstain until marriage it save a lot of problems?
If you listen to what the young lady stated, or if you listened to what the women in congress are saying, giving contraception to women at no cost to them reduce costs to insurance companies.
So why say otherwise? - (to then see the RATES go up to cover the cost)
"WHY not send the message to abstain until marriage it save a lot of problems?" - Pay attention, young people aren't getting married, they have seen how their elders have ruined the institution, so there is no waiting until being married until you have sex.
Different times, you reap what you sow.
Using common logic
If contraception is so costly young people need it to be covered by health insurance WOULD it not be costly for the insurance company? Would they not pass that cost on to the consumer?
Since when should we believe the liars in Congrtess.
You are so right the "new age" has ruined the institution in fact they are ruing family values which happen to be the historic core of civilization. The liberals are just as happy as can be over that...
canative, telling teens not to have sex isn't going to make them not have sex. I'd rather give my kid a condom/birth control pills and tell them if they're going to have sex they better use that because I'm not going to take care of their baby.
New age didn't ruin the institution, an inability for the baby boom generation to keep commitments to anything once the going gets tough is what ruined it. A 50% divorce rate is what ruined the institution, not new age anything.
I know you can only grasp surface issues, but look into all of the costs insurance companies would incur if women were to have unwanted pregnancies. There are other medical reasons for women to take the pill that I am not versed enough to speak to that possibly a woman would inform us of.
Just because you and the other conservatives have your head in the gutter does not mean the rest of us does.
Here is a quote from the conservative mouth piece today: “What is it with all of these young, single, white women, overeducated — doesn’t mean intelligent.”
Ladies, it's time you start getting used to being put in your place, especially if conservatives are in charge again. As you can see from the conservative standard bearer that money is being wasted on your educations because it doesn't mean you will be more intelligent. Don't you agree with the conservatives that intelligence is not assured to you with education?
The funny thing is, women are the majority! This is the 21st century, stand up for yourselves already, or just accept that you are second class citizens who are here for our service!
What is the man's problem with women,he isn't happy unless he is demeaning them,somehow it seems to make him feel superior,because in actuality he is the poster boy for ridiculous ,and foolish,and sorely lacking in how to behave decently in society.
The latest young lady who has to her "misfortune" caught his attention is Tracie McMillan who wrote the book “The American Way of Eating,”
His behavior just keeps getting more and more bizarre.
He sits behind his desk,and acts as if he has all the answers as to what it is that make women tick.
I get the feeling he doesn't really think much of women ,as if we are somehow less then men.
His hates seems to run so deep that knowing full well the mess he has gotten himself into already he just can't contain himself in continuously going after women. He has lost any self control he may of had.
He gave out what he called a "sincere heartfelt apology" and then spouted out all he did was give in and become like the Liberals!!
That's why he did it,first it was a joke,then it was "the Liberals made me do it"
Is that taking accountability ,"NO"
What is really laughable is in his "so called apology" he said "I’ve always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program."
You would think the word "integrity" would be very hard for him to get out with a straight face.
Now we have 26 companies who have pulled the plug,I know that Limbaugh has many followers and the chances of him being let go are slim,but let him go is exactly what should be done,he isn't showing remorse,because he isn't remorseful.If he thought he did something wrong he would stop verbally attacking women.
I thought in the beginning that him getting fired might be extreme,maybe he would learn from this,move on and not do it anymore.
I think we can see this will never happen,he has no intentions of letting up on women .
A much more intriguing subject that could have been impartially presented in this blog should have been 'Double Standards, the methods and mentality associated with those who incredulously defend them'.
"Double Standards"?? Do you have any in mind? Please don't bring up that silly comparison with Bill Maher the Comedian to Limbaugh, the GOP standard-bearer.
Larry, In order to maintain a leftist double standard, you keep asserting that the misogynist known as Bill Maher is merely a comedian. He is also a Political Commentator and a $1 Million dollar contributor to the Super PAC supporting President Barack Obama’s re-election bid. It is evident why you attempt to distance, deflect and minimize Maher's vile misogynistic vebal attacks and his connection to leftist politics. The only posters that will agree with you are the MB members in solid support of left-wing double standards.
Larry, Let's wait and see if the obama campaign will return the $1 million dollar reelection contribution to Maher. You know...because obama and his administration care so very much for all women and how they are portrayed and characterized by ANY political pundit.
and yet, here we are watching American's, and sponsors leaving the conservative mouth piece in droves, and yet no mention of Bill Maher in the news.
It seems that friendo is the only one who is boycotting Mr Maher, while Americans share their disgust over this vile conservative who sees no issue with demeaning women, or any minority just to advance his movements distructive ways. Since I don't see Friendo shunning the woman hater, he must be agreeing with him, just like that syndicated columnist Bozell that the MB proudly posts in its daily newsletter.
...and yet, here we are watching American's, and sponsors leaving the conservative mouth piece in droves, and yet no mention of Bill Maher the leftist mouth piece in the news.
And do you know exactly what that intentional political behavior is called? A LEFTIST DOUBLE STANDARD.
Thank You for illustrating my point.
Since I don't see TheSovereign shunning Bill Maher the woman hater, he must be agreeing with him just like the rest of the leftists that cleverly employ political double standards.
There's a preconceived notion by some that taking birth control is for the sole purpose of allowing teens,or even older women to have sex without the worry of getting pregnant.
I can assure you this is a misconception.
Most women know this and some men are also very educated in this ,but you still have the ones remaining that cling to the old views ,that are often associated with religious beliefs that were taught to them.
There are other reasons birth control may have to be used , and I emphasize "have to" as in no choice.Some are life saving reasons.
canative as suggested abstinence "or waiting to get married" therefore again being under the delusion that birth control only is to be used for contraceptive reasons.
But It can protect against some certain cancers,endometrial and ovarian cancer by more than 70 percent after 12 years; even just one to five years may lower your risk by 40 percent.
Birth Control works by decreasing how often a woman will ovulate,ovulation triggers cell changes in the ovaries that can bring on certain cancers.
It has also been used for acute cases of acme,it helps clear your skin by decreasing levels of testosterone, which stimulates oil production.
Anyone who has ever suffered with acne or knew someone who did knows that it can permanently scar if left untreated.Acne also causes emotional distress.
Birth Control steady's hormones so it is very useful in helping those that suffer with severe PMS (I think everyone knows what PMS is)
Some women suffer with Endometri*osis a medical condition in which uterine-lining tissue grows in other pelvic areas this is by all accounts from what I have heard extremely painful and can at times be debilitating for the woman.
The Pill aids by stopping the growth of tissue in other areas by reducing the hormones that cause the lining to build up.
Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome is a common hormonal disorder among women of reproductive age.Early diagnosis and treatment may reduce the risk of long-term complications, such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Again the key here is that the Pill levels the hormone estrogen.
Remember that just because it is called a contraceptive doesn't mean this is always what women take it for,try to be understanding of the other reasons.
Lastly when used for contraception "thank goodness",how many more unwanted pregnancy's do we need ,how many more babies to be left in dumpsters or grow up to be abused because they were not wanted.
Hello Friendo, Since you see, in your mind, a "leftist double standard", why don't you follow your own advice and post your own blog about it? You state that it is such an "intriguing subject that could have been impartially presented". The challenge will be to keep your blog impartial, a standard and quality that you repeatedly find lacking in others. Instead, you have merely hijacked rozemist's blog and attempted to divert attention from her subject (Limbaugh's reprehensible behavior) to focus on your own pet peeve - the perceived (in your opinion) double standard of liberals. Your original post did have some valuable points worth discussion - namely the fact that both liberals and conservatives have demeaned women. But rather than forcefully denouncing Limbaugh's words and behavior, you gloss over his transgressions, counter with the "liberals did it too" lame defense (as if that gives any side, conservative or liberal a free pass) and proceed to muddy the waters with your "Liberals are such hypocrites with their double standards" accusations (my interpretation, not your actual words). The part of your post I found the most amusing was you writing out the self-created script of supposed liberal responses to your questions and when they deviate off script and don't fall for the bait, you pretend they did anyway. Go back and read what rozemist ACTUALLY wrote about ED Shultz and her feelings about his behavior and then justify how you claim she gave "the classic response 'I was unaware of Ed Shultz's comments'..." In fact, SHE DIDN'T! The written evidence is posted clearly for all to see, why pretend otherwise? Is it because it fits your agenda that you so desperately want to believe in? The original valid point that you had, which is that both liberals and conservatives should not demean women, is lost in your partisan frothing at the mouth. That is most unfortunate because an interesting offshoot of this discussion and debate could have been that no woman should be publicly demeaned in such a manner, but is it even worse when the woman in question is a private citizen, rather than an elected representative or public figure? Slander laws make a differentiation, should we? Sincerely, Karen
Whoa!!! Fredo... having trouble walking there little buddy...:-) :-) If this was spin the bottle, apparently your favorite pastime, you would have gone home crying by now... :-)
If only our feigning friendo was sincere and original in his feigning. Here is the talking points that he is working from, as I mentioned, syndicated columnist Brent Bozell, who is a regular in the right wing newsletter Manteca Bulletin, has been quite vocal in trying to counter the fall out over the continued vile remarks by the conservative mouth piece. Mr Bozell stated:
“Let’s all agree Rush crossed a line. He agrees. He has also apologized profusely, but the left wont accept an apology,” Bozell says in a video on the site. ( istandwithrush.org) (notice how Bozell states that the woman hater stated he apologized profusely?)
"The left never gets mad when one of its own says something outrageous about women, Bozell argues, pointing to Bill Maher, who “called Sarah Palin, a dumb — excuse me — a dumb t**t.” "
(here is the talking point that our feigning friendo uses)
"Bozell — recently seen calling President Obama “a skinny, ghetto crackhead” — has also written an op-ed on FoxNews.com on Limbaugh, saying that “liberals want this government-mandate controversy to be not about religious liberty, which is devastating, but about contraceptives, which works in their favor.” "
(here is where Bozell is pointing out that the American public is not buying what the right is selling. As you can see how he makes his statement that he is referring to the failure of the scheme, and not the rejection of the evidence that seems to never produce)
(more feigning indignation from a low life conservative who disrespects our country and our President by calling him a "a skinny, ghetto crackhead" but defends scum like the radio host.)
As I said, the rightwing scheme to mislead the public to believe that the President or the government as a whole is attacking religion isn't sticking. The public saw through it (they're not as dumb as the conservative believe) and saw it for what it is, and attack on women and women's rights.
Feign, feign, feign..... why oh why do they not buy our BS!!!!
Our feigning friendo is just playing the game, no sincerity to his motives. What can one expect from a conservative, its all dirty tricks all of the time.
Here is a site to see the whole article:
Thanks for the link Sovereign
Now I see how Friendo came up with his comments.
Friendo the person who regularly attacks peoples blogs but never tries to contribute one himself.And even his attacks are not genuine but fake.
So poor Limbaugh has been "singled out and condemned across the board by the national media.”
Gee I was under the impression it was because of what he said for 3 days straight regarding a young woman,regarding a human being,how silly of me to believe that his despicable behavior alone was what got Limbaugh into the hole he dug himself into.
I must of missed him apologizing "profusely" I was still stuck on the insincerity of what he called his apology ,"it was just humor,no it was I did what the Liberals do,actually it was the Liberals fault" Is Brent Bozell talking about "That Apology"
Let us a moment ask Mr Bozell where is his condemnation for Mr Limbaugh singling out Sandra Fluke and "condemning","ridiculing" "demeaning" her using his power's of the media
How does he feel about that,or is he unable to see passed his "concerns for Limbaugh"
Who was the injured party in this ,who were the attacks aimed at?
Amazing how they are trying to turn this around even now.
Please explain why shock jock Howard Stern known for being "lewd" (free speech)and Imus with his basketball comments are OK because he appologized but a conservative (WHO is NOT the spokesperson for conservatives, despite what some on this blog proclaim) who did indeed go over the line is so bad. Maybe double standards is the reality..
Imus if you remember got "fired" from CBS for his disgusting remarks regarding the Rutgers Womens Basketball Team , condemnation rained down on his head fiercely by all sides and not just political.
And again this was more attacks against women,not just women of color.
He had everyone on him.People started protesting,and then sponsors pulled their ads from his show.
What are you trying to say about Howard Stern,
Everyone knows he is the King of obscenity ,and has consistently said disgusting things about women ,and as a matter of fact everyone in general.I don't know why the man has such a large following,as much as I never have figured out why "intelligent people listen to Limbaugh"
Stern is on some satellite program isn't he and I think he is on there because the censorship is more flexible.
So what exactly is your point ,because you lost me.What do Imus and Stern have to do with Limbaugh except they all have abused the power they have with their positions to attack innocent people.
Native, why not tell us why it's ok for Stern and Imus, since no one here used them as an example pro or con. So tell us why it was ok?
How about telling us why the conservatives don't boycott these entertainer's shows as well as their sponsors products? Tell me why all the conservatives ever do is scheme and use innuendo and insinuations instead of action?
And Native, why do you pretend that the conservative spokesperson is not the conservative spokes person. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the issues that the conservatives face is that the general public is not as dumb and as easily swayed as conservatives in general are. This BS that you conservatives like to shovel at Americans may sound good to you all, but we all see through the ploys.
Sov, Thanks for the underhanded compliment regarding your false claim theorizing my reliance upon talking points, but just for the record while occasionally seeing Mr Bozell on TV, I have never read any of his articles or relied upon any talking points. I am able to formulate my own original opinions, Thank you. I guess nowdays if one follows events that are reported on TV, radio or the internet and actually develops an intelligent and original opinion concerning specific events, the only partisan way to discredit and oppose the genuine originality contained within that opinion is to falsely assert that it originated from a source containing posted political talking points. Really? I thought you were better than that. You have proved me wrong. Why stoop to such a low level? However, if I were to ever incorporate political talking points concerning the elephant in the room known as 'Liberal Double Standards' those talking points would undoubtedly come from Liberal pundit Kirsten Powers found in her March 4th 2012 article posted at the ULTRA LIBERAL 'The Daily Beast'. Here is the link, read it and educate yourself...
" I thought" - huh! Really, on your own?
"You have proved me wrong." - yeah, we all realize this fact. What's new?
In her March 4th 2012 online article, "Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist"
posted at The Daily Beast, Liberal pundit Kirsten Powers lists several liberal spokespersons and their vile misogynistic attcks directed toward various WOMEN and examines why the women hating remarks are intentionally ignored, minimized and deflected by the liberal left.
When speaking of false claims,and getting the record straight what is your opinion of the your untruth that my response to your comment yesterday was "as expected we get the classic response, 'I was unaware of Ed Schultz's comments,...but I was certainly aware of Mr Limbaugh's comments and found it necessary to blog about it'.
Your statement was not true,it was far removed from the truth,it was "made up" !
That was never my response,but since I did not respond to you in the way you wished for,or had anticipated you made up your "own response for me" .
Are you that desperate to prove your point,at any cost ?
You tell Sovereign that you are capable of formulating your own original opinions,I'm not sure that can be accepted since you "erased my opinion" and replaced it with one that you decided to come up with.
I will take full accountability for what it is that "I do say" but I will not for something that I didn't say,and you know full well your comment was false.
Double Standards ,maybe that is a subject you might make a blog about ,you seem to know so much about it.
Sov, If I were an old worn out left wing supporting dinosuar, such as yourself, watching his utopian leftist ancient hippie agenda go down the tubes just eight months prior to the presidential election...I might also grasp at straws by hypocritically hyping and exaggerating the Limbaugh situation.
" I thought" - huh! Really, on your own? ...No Silly. I told you Liberal Kirsten Powers inspired my online comments. Albeit days after my original posts! HA!
"You have proved me wrong."...Was an incomplete sentence. Should have read..."You have proved me wrong concerning my assumption that you possessed and were guided by even a modicum of genuine integrity."
Fredo wasn't satisfied with the bloody nose he got yesterday, now he invites an even greater embarrassment. I almost feel sorry for Mr. Spin the bottle, looks like the bottle keeps stopping on him and not in a good way...But hey, he is the one spinning the thing in the first place right?
In Larry's case since female players were always absent and unavailable for a make out session...following his solo 'spin the bottle' participation Larry would make out with the bottle...EWWWW!!! YUCK!!! Mr.Love the bottle was at least resourceful.
Hello Friendo, You wrote, "No Silly, I told that Liberal Kirsten Powers inspired my online comments. Albeit days after my original posts! Ha!" I have some questions for you: How can Ms. Powers have "inspired" the comments you posted, when you claim not to have seen this so-called inspirational blog until "days after my original posts"? In other words, how can you be inspired by something which you hadn't yet (according to you) been aware of before posting your comments? Also, the time frame is somewhat perplexing since Ms. Powers blog was posted March 4, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. , while your first post here was March 5th at 2:23a.m.? Even accounting for a couple hour time difference that the Bulletin site has (Bulletin time postings are around 2 hours ahead of the actual time), that would have put your post at about midnight, plenty of time for you to have actually viewed Ms. Powers blog. My point is this: You were either truly inspired by Kirsten Powers' blog (as you so claim), because you actually did read it beforehand (in which case, The Sovereign is wrong on the specifics, namely Bozell, but not the fact that your ideas were "inspired" by another source) or you never read her blog previous to your own postings and thus could not logically have been inspired by her blog at all. You can't have it both ways. Either you read her blog and were "inspired" to come up with your own comments or you posted first and instead view her blog as confirmation or affirmation of your own opinion. You simply CAN NOT be INSPIRED by something that you haven't seen prior to posting. Perhaps you need to re-think your assertion which is sadly lacking in common sense. Sincerely, Karen
On July 8, 2007, the Drudge Report indicated that Imus would return to the air before the 2008 presidential election. The New York Post reported on July 16, 2007, that Imus was in search of a black comedian to join the show upon its return to help cushion racially insensitive comments he might say on the air. The same paper reported on July 27, 2007, that CBS was close to a buyout of Imus's contract. The report also said Imus's representatives had contacted Buckley Broadcasting, Citadel Broadcasting, and Clear Channel Communications. On August 14, Imus reached a settlement with CBS Radio over his contract, leaving him free to pursue other media opportunities.
this is all AFTER his basketball foo pah
His career doesn't appear to be over...
Oops! My mistake! The time difference between the Bulletin's time stamp and the actual time is that the Bulletin makes it look like the post is 3 hours (not 2 as I previously stated) ahead of the actual time of posting. Sorry for the error or any confusion. Sincerely, Karen
This is the "lewd" foul mouthed, shock jock.
Still on the air....
Howard Stern is 58 years old
Born: 12 January 1954
Birthplace: Jackson Heights, New York
Best known as:
'Shock jock' host of radio's The Howard Stern Show
Howard Stern's fondness for naughty talk and frank scatology helped his morning radio show become a nationwide hit in the 1990s. Stern got started in radio while at Boston University, worked as a deejay in various cities, and finally settled into a morning talk format in New York City, where his explicit brand of low-brow humor found a wider audience via national syndication. His autobiography Private Parts was published in 1993, followed by the 1995 book Miss America. Stern played himself in a feature film version of Private Parts in 1998. His widespread successes led to his self-proclaimed nickname of "King of All Media." Stern's controversial subject matter also led to multiple run-ins with the Federal Communications Commission, which has fined Stern and his corporate parents on several occasions. In 2004 he announced that he had signed a five-year, $500 million contract to take his radio show to Sirius Satellite Radio, a subscription-only network where he would be unaffected by FCC regulations. His final show on "terrestrial" broadcast radio was 16 December 2005, and his first Sirius show aired on 9 January 2
why don't you contact the satellite stations that employ Stern,and voice how much you feel he should be off the air,and list your reasons,why not sign a petition,pursue avenues that will set your mind at ease that you tried to do something.
Same as with Imus,find out if he is employed and do what ever it is that has you so worried about Stern and Imus.
I'm still trying to piece together tho what it is that has had you tie them in with Limbaugh,is there some recent connection we don't know about.
I haven't heard anything about Imus in ages,as for Stern I don't know anything about his porn radio.
But like Limbaugh he has followers.
Hello Karen, The answer to your question is simple. I thought others would be able to see through my jocular Kerstin Powers inspired comments. I was being facetious with my response by claiming that my 'after the fact inspiration', originated from a Liberal pundit's condemnation of liberal misogynistic comments and double standards posted by her at the Ultra Liberal 'The Daily Beast'. It's like this Karen, I being a conservative used a liberal's posted condemnation of liberal misogyny and double standards to strengthen and support my opinion.
Karen you missed my sentence that explained my fecetious Kerstin Powers inspired comments. Here it is,
"However, if I were to ever incorporate political talking points concerning the elephant in the room known as 'Liberal Double Standards' those talking points would undoubtedly come from Liberal pundit Kirsten Powers found in her March 4th 2012 article posted at the ULTRA LIBERAL 'The Daily Beast'"
Karen, My assertion was facetious and presented as such. You didn't see it or perhaps failed to understand it. See how I prefaced my comments with 'However, IF I WERE TO EVER incorporate political talking points concerning...blah blah blah.
I saw Kerstin's comments at The Daily Beast this morning. Yes Karen, I used Kerstin Powers Daily Beast post to facetiously augment my position. I am sorry if my jocularity caused you to go back and take the time to research and verify my timeline as it was completely unnecessary. I didn't intend to to waste your time having you look for something that was never there.
This just in...MSNBC DOT COM is reporting that nationally revered radio show host Rush Limbaugh has THREE BRAND NEW SPONSORS joining his nationally revered talk show within the next two weeks!!!
Also, two former Rush sponsors now want back in!!!
Karen, you are correct. Rozemist has my sincere apology. I did not read her post that indicated her acknowledgment that she was aware of Ed Schultz's liberal misogynist attack prior to her condemnation of Mr Limbaugh for the same offense. It was my error. You could say that I Rushed through rozemist's post and posted my response in haste.
However, let's all be very clear about Miss Fluke's congressional testimony. It was classic Liberal Political Theater and pandering and as such she is subject to political praise or political condemnation. Although, If she is to be condemned it should be done with civility.
Karen I very much appreciate your consistency at always pursuing points of facts,and truths it is a trait in you I have always admired.
You have time and again been the catalyst in bringing fourth those things that we have often not seen.
Just as you did in this blog.
I hope that you will never tire or feel it a waste of your valuable time in searching for facts and answers where ever they might be.
"If I were an old worn out left wing supporting dinosuar, such as yourself, watching his utopian leftist ancient hippie agenda go down the tubes just eight months prior to the presidential election...I might also grasp at straws by hypocritically hyping and exaggerating the Limbaugh situation" - Wow! That was a mouth full, I sure would like to see the whole email that you got that one from.
If I remember correctly, and I do, back in the old hippie days there were hippies that were known as "Jesus Freaks." Maybe my political philosophy does follow many of the teachings of Jesus, which are obviously anti-conservative. You know those old utopian ideals of "he ain't heavy, he's my brother." Taking care of the poor, the elderly, the sick, those who need shelter or food. I am a firm believer that when the tide rises, that all ship rise. Especially when we live in the richest nation in the world.
Seeing that you are conservative/christian you are oblivious of Jesus' teaching, you just know him as a paid spokesman for the GOP. I look up to someone like Sister Theresa, who followed Jesus' teachings, and got down in the gutter and aided the "unclean." Conservatives look up to the Church of Prosperity, and the Crystal Cathedral, which to me sounds much like the Golden Calf scenario that Moses threw a fit over, and they judge the "unclean" as unworthy. Jesus said that it would be easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. What a Liberal, all he is trying to do is start class warfare.
Yep, I have a utopian belief that we are a people unified as a society, and not a land full of individuals who are scheming as to how they can take as much from someone else before their's is taken. I also have this utopian belief that we have liberties in this country, not that I have liberties, and you have to follow them.
I saw a poster the other day - "Obama is NOT a brown skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare.... You were thinking of Jesus"
The real utopian ideal that I see the conservatives trying to destroy just before the next election is the Constitution, and the American way of life, and they are going to do it one lie at a time.
This remark by one such advertiser, Carbonite, was made by their CEO, David Friend:
“No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”
Now I understand that Mr Limbaugh is not concerned with the loss of any sponsors,he even made it apart of his show.
He actually went out of his way to make this an important segment to ease the minds of his "listeners" this was what he said he was trying to do.
Well time is going to tell if Mr Limbaugh will come out of this unscathed ,or if he will come out of it at all.
The real question is has he learned anything from this,that still remains to be seen.
And the others like him out there who use their powers in the media to attack women might take a very long look at what Limbaugh is going through and give some serious thought before deciding to attack women,women are tired of it,I think Society as a whole is getting tired of it.It's not funny ,it's not cool,making women the verbal punching bags for entertainment,or Politics,or any other lame reason is enough already.
I hope that women will say it loud and clear,that they are angry and fed up, and are not going to take it anymore.
"let's all be very clear about Miss Fluke's congressional testimony" - Let's be very clear about it, she was there to participate in classic radical ultra right wing political theater in the first place.
It was the one sided, all male, religious leader, anti contraception hearings that brought Ms Fluke to the attention of the American people. It was Darrell Issa (R) from our great state of California that excluded her testimony that set the stage for all that we have been discussing here. Just think, the conservatives might have maintained control of the narrative if Issa wasn't so obvious about what he was doing.
Follow the link, if for nothing else, you get the great picture of the witnesses waiting to testify.
Hello Friendo, Sometimes a post that is intended to be sarcastic or facetious loses something in translation and can be perhaps misunderstood. Humor is a very tricky thing, just ask Limbaugh who supposedly intended his original insulting remarks about Ms. Fluke to be taken in a humorous vein. What some find amusing, others do not. I don't consider asking you questions, researching my position, and getting clarification from you, to be a waste of my time, so your apology to me is quite unnecessary (although appreciated). Anything that furthers the discussion in a civil way is time well spent, in my opinion. I do commend you for finally stepping up and apologizing to rozemist, who most decidedly deserved your "mea culpa". That was a classy move on your part. I know it is difficult (at least for me) to sometimes admit errors or mistaken beliefs, but I generally have greater respect for people who have the moral fortitude to directly own up to the fact when they are wrong. My only quibble (admittedly a small one) is that you needed several promptings from rozemist (and one from me) to do so, but "better late than never"! Sincerely, Karen
Earlier Sov posted 'Here lies one of the issues that we have in this country with the conservatives running amuck'...
Amuck, amuck? Amuck...it took me back and reminded me of this...
'He's the hairy handed gent ... who ran AMUCK in Kent,
Lately he's been overheard in Mayfair
You better stay away from him,
He'll rip your lungs out, Jim,
Huh! I'd like to meet his tailor'.
From Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London
What can I say but that a picture is worth a thousand words.
I had read about the all male birth control panel,but had not seen the picture of it,the picture is powerful in its message of what women are up against.
So now Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is saying this was not his finest hour,but he feels the constitution is under attack.Which is it he feels he made a mistake in not letting a woman testify,or he had to do what he did because he was compelled ,very much like our friend Limbaugh who felt "compelled" because the Liberals made him do it.
Originally Issa defended his choice to not let a woman testify on TV with Greta Van Susteren citing "that the woman’s story wasn’t at all relevant to the hearing".
Interesting choice of words "woman's story not relevant to a hearing that is in regards to a new birth control ruling"and also whether they want to admit it or not this is regarding women's health issues.
Yesterday I inserted a link but today I see that the link doesn't work,so will provide another,I believe this was the link I provided dailykos.com
Sorry for a broken link.
I think the point is morethat THE left is in an up roar over Rush while they ignore Stern amd Imus NOT that the right should demand their Free Speech be curbed. The difference is when the right doesn't like the "speech" they jsut don't listen to it... Too bad the left couldn't be so inclined.
Likewise I just want to hear from anyone on the left open enough to explain why the demand for Rush to be shut down and yet Imus and Stern continue to function on air doesn't seem to bother liberals?
Hello canative62, You have fallen for Friendo's false dichotomy that this is a liberal/conservative issue. Show me where anyone on this blog, in any of the on-line comments, said that calling a woman degrading names and shredding a woman's reputation (asking who bought condoms for her in junior high and expressing amazement that she "could still walk" after all the sex that she must be having, as Limbaugh commented about Sandra Fluke)is perfectly acceptable when coming from a liberal source. Even though I am not conservative or on "the right", I don't listen to talk show pundits or radio hosts who offend me. I don't follow Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Imus, Stern, Ed Schultz or Olberman, because I disagree with the extremism and tactics they each employ. But I don't expect any of them to be "shut down" because they fill a need for some people just like Jerry Springer shows. Even though I feel they play to the worst in human nature, I recognize their right to free speech. Yet when this speech becomes vile and hateful, they are not immune or protected from public criticism, which, if you researched it out, most of these men have experienced in some form. Please quit trying to make this into another divisive "us against them" issue and help us instead draw recognition to the fact that NO ONE, from either side or whatever party, should use sexist terms in criticizing women, any more than it is acceptable to use racist terms in criticizing minorities. Focus on attacking or rebutting the ideas presented, not the person or his or her reputation. This is a concept that all of us who contribute to this on-line forum should also keep in mind when we address each other. The disrespect and ridicule that goes on in some of the blogs is distasteful, to say the least. I do not like a person hammering others over the head about Christianity, since I believe that you come to God on your own terms, by faith, not logic and you can't browbeat or threaten anyone else into genuinely accepting God. Belief, especially religious faith, is intensely personal and an individual's choice. Yet I hate to see these heavy-handed attempts at justifying or supposedly defending Christianity met with such distaste, ridicule, and disrespect. Civility on this forum, despite our passionate disagreements, should still be the expected standard. That is the true "double standard" - if we expect others to treat us respectfully, yet feel free to personally and childishly attack them. Sincerely, Karen
Speaking of Warren Zevon, follow this link to hear one of his last songs that he wrote and recorded while he was dying of lung cancer. Its a little special to me since it came out the same time my dad was dying from the same cancer.
Hello Karen. I disagree with your remark that I presented a false dichotomy.
You wrote in part, 'Show me where anyone on this blog, in any of the on-line comments, said that calling a woman degrading names and shredding a woman's reputation,is perfectly acceptable when coming from a liberal source'.
My contention is that it's not what is being said, but rather what is not being said.
I realize that depending on your political orientation be it left, right or center your perspective and take on all things political and social issues will likely differ. Many times we see things differently based upon our political perspective. Often our values and aversions play a role in our political affiliation.
I mean no disrepect to rozemist but my perception is that this blog was not prefaced in a manner that fairly acknowleged the uncivil comments also made by non conservative political commentators. By failing to briefly mention that other political commentators participate in personal attacks, the perception is that rozemist was singling out a political commentator worthy of condemnation not so much because of what he said but because of his political affiliation. It's not what you say, it's what you don't say. Without that important impartial acknowledgement the blog content will appear to have no objectivety as it relates to a specific talk show hosts uncivil comments. This is why I suspect that some here see this blog as an attack against a specific political party. So you see there is no false dichotomy inplay but rather a demand for political objectivity. I was not being left versus right or presenting a false dichotomy with my many remarks regarding this blog's deficiency in objectivity. Again no disrespect toward rozemist, just honest diagreement. Sincerely, Friendo
I did single out Limbaugh, he was the "subject" of this blog,but you will continue to see only that I singled him out because he is "Conservative"
It is always that "Liberal v*s Conservative"
mentality with you .
Common sense would say that if I took the time to write a blog about Limbaugh and what he did ,expressing my deep distaste for this type of behavior that it would normally follow that one would perceive that I have a complete distaste for this type of behavior from "anyone",even if I did not give a list of names as you think I should of done.
What on earth would make anyone believe that i would condone it from any person.
You want me to name every "Liberal" who has said a derogatory thing against women ,then if I had done that my blog would of been written in the way that "you think it should of been"
It appears as tho you want to decide how my blogs should be written .
It doesn't work that way.
My subject was Limbaugh that is a fact.And the things that he said about Ms Fluke.
It was about Sandra Fluke.
It's about women's rights,birth control issue and women's health all very important subjects to me.
Friendo,I didn't write this blog as some sort of Political statment,I wrote this blog about Limbaugh and the understanding that I abhor "all such behavior".Just because it wasn't written to your specifics doesn't mean I condone such actions from Liberals,but it doesn't matter what I say you see my blog one way,I see it another.And that is alright.
This blog ,and any other blog I might write could possibly be seen as a attack against a specific political party by some ,and that is another fact.
I suggest again that you write a blog Friendo,why not give that list of names that you want injected,why not write a blog that you will see as completely objective.
Why not put into your blog everything you feel I should of said,and more, but Friendo do something ,don't keep doing nothing.
If change is what you want,then bring about the changes that you can.
There you go Fredo, another challenge you can duck....
You gonna take Rozemist up on her suggestion or are you simply going to keep supporting Rush and continue swimming around in the acrid shallows trying to save him from himself.
I don't believe you have the guts to take the challenge just like you don't have the guts to reply to those other two strings waiting on you...
Hello rozemist, I think you would probably agree with the premise that blogs objectively constructed maintain their credibility. This is not about conservative versus liberal, or right against left. It's not a political thing. It's an objectivity thing.
You wrote in part, 'This blog,and any other blog I might write could possibly be seen as a attack against a specific political party by some'...
I maintain that if one incorporates objectivity into ones blogs the chances that the blog will be received as a specific political attack by others will be greatly reduced.
Bill Maher recently tweeted these interesting remarks about the Limbaugh flap.
"Hate to defend Rush Limbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout."
Hello Friendo, You write, "It's not what you say, it's what you don't say" and chide rozemist for failing to list liberal offenders in her blog, in the interest of "objectivity". Yet in your first response to this blog, you never singled out nor criticized Limbaugh by name, preferring the more generic "Sexist comments generated from the right or the left are both wrong..." (a point echoed by liberals on this site). By choosing to gloss over Limbaugh's behavior, you fail the "objectivity test" that you set for rozemist. You forcefully condemn Ed Schultz (and rightly so) for his "vile sexist remarks", but are strangely quiet about Limbaugh's flaws. Later, you claim that others already have chastised Limbaugh enough, so that any contribution on your part was unnecessary. But if you truly expect objectivity in posts or blogs, you need to model that same behavior. Unfortunately, you haven't.
You say that you aren't presenting a false dichotomy, but are merely demanding "political objectivity". Again, such an expectation calls for posts where you, yourself, equally demonstrate this desired standard. Using terms in your initial post such as "shameful liberal hypocrisy", "this political ploy is transparent", "disingenuous blog", and "we are awaiting your party line response" reeks of the one-sided partiality found in political partisanship and clearly shows that you aren't unbiased.
I completely agree with your premise that our political affiliations or orientations can shape our perspectives. They also affect our perceptions. While it may be YOUR perception that rozemist's blog was unfair to conservative commentators, that is just OPINION (which of course you have a right to express). But you take your perspective and perception and rather than writing the more neutral "it seems to me" or "it looks like you are giving liberal offenders a free pass, why is that?", you instead assert that what YOU see as her lack of objectivity was purposeful, unequivocally politically motivated, and deliberately dishonest. That is unfair to rozemist. As she suggested, you should write your own blog on this topic. Just remember to keep in mind the guidelines of objectivity that you set out for the rest of us, when you formulate your own blog. Hopefully, if you neglect to mention a point that a reader feels is essential, he or she will be less judgmental and not so quick to ascribe devious motives to your commentary. You sadly lacked the grace to extend this courtesy to rozemist. You could have easily and effectively made your valid point about the documented flaws of liberal commentators without engaging in a tirade against her and others. Such behavior is beneath a person of your obvious intelligence. Sincerely, Karen
So Fredo ducks out again....I want to see how he squirms out of Karen's way... and after going after Bill Maher, he suddenly likes his tweets. I watch Bill Maher but I don't always agree with him. This is one example. Maher says "..Rush apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting". Like others who have said pretty much the same thing, forget something... it was not anyone's position to accept the apology except for the one who was attacked. She didn't and for good reason.
So come on Fredo write that blog... and while you are at it, respond to those two other strings. Squirm, squirm, squirm...
I'm unable to see that the issue with you now is called "objectivity" your comments shout out the opposite .
I will let your own words speak,and they always say Liberal v*s Conservative or Conservative v*s Liberal it always comes out the same.
"This is not about conservative versus liberal, or right against left. It's not a political thing. It's an objectivity thing."
""I was not being left versus right or presenting a false dichotomy with my many remarks regarding this blog's deficiency in objectivity."
"Yes rozemist I do have a strong reaction to BS"
"Just a modicum of intellectual honesty in this blog would be refreshing. Your attempt to politcize this incident has backfired"
"However, when the hypocritical opportunity presented itself to lamely bash the opposition, the Holier Than thou part of you jumped all over it"
"The anti conservative strategy of feigned indignation and outrage is alive and well in the MB blogs."
"A much more intriguing subject that could have been impartially presented in this blog should have been 'Double Standards, the methods and mentality associated with those who incredulously defend them'".
"Liberal offenses go unseen and remain unspoken while conservative offensives will be scrutinized for political gain. Libs lack any credibility when they choose to highlight the errors of others while ignoring the exact same offenses committed by their brethren. SAD, SAD, SAD."
"Since the MB liberals refuse to voluntarily take the initiative and denounce stupidity coming from their own, I'll extend the same liberal courtesy intentionally given to Schultz and Maher by the MB libs and apply it to the conservative host. My abstaining from piling on will help keep the MB online political playing field level and honest."
"But ya know this blog was used as a ploy in an attempt to exploit and exaggerate an offense coming from the political right that would remain strictly verboten were the same offense supplied by the political left"
"However, let's all be very clear about Miss Fluke's congressional testimony. It was classic Liberal Political Theater and pandering and as such she is subject to political praise or political condemnation.
Although, If she is to be condemned it should be done with civility."
It would seem that sometimes feathers can unintentionally get ruffled when we dare to call into question the hows, the whys and suggest a written avoidance of associated relevant behaviors located within the content of a shared on-line journal. Should public comments not be dicussed publicly?
TheSovereign, I appreciate the link. The song was deeply touching. His lyrics certainly help keep life in perspective. Thanks
"Last week there was a hearing that was spun, it was terrible spun. We all saw it. I won’t call it my greatest success to get a point across on behalf of the American people." - Thats all any of this has been is spin. That is all friendo is doing, he is trying to spin you away from what is really the issue here, the conservatives lost control of the narrative.
I reread Roze's blog, and it is a strong opinion with many current facts to back her opinion. No where does it say that an opinion blog needs to be totally unbiased. There has obviously been a line crossed, and it has caught the attention of the whole country, and Roze expressed her feelings on the subject.
I stated in my post that Limbaugh was expressing his frustration that he and the conservatives lost control of the conversation. It had to happen eventually, the guy has been at it for a long time, and these things used to work, and now everyone is looking at Ms Fluke. So he needed to paint a vile picture of her before America sees her as she is, a young 1st century woman who can speak intelligently.
I have seen on various news sites where there are people who are looking to the government to do something about this. That is ridiculous and is unconstitutional. He has the right to say what he wants, even if it crosses the line. The freedom of speech protects undesirable speech, not favorable speech. If he crossed a line where Ms Fluke can sue on defamation or some other character assassination law that may be on the books, well that is the result of unfettered undesirable speech.
You know how the free marketers like to say the markets will correct their own, well, this is how society corrects its own, it makes a pariah out of the person who goes beyond societal norms and abuses their freedom of speech. His employer has made a lot of money off of him, and they should be able to weather the exodus of sponsors knowing that if they don't loose much in ratings they will eventually get back the sponsors. If the audience shrinks, then he will be reduced down to Savage status, just another radio host.
If you read friendo's first post, right out of the gate he comes out on the defensive trying desperately to spin this:
"Rozemist, Sov, Karen, Larry, we are awaiting your party line response. We are sure that each of you will want to take the time to tell us just how awful Ed Schultz's comments about Laura Ingraham were."
No one was speaking about what Ed Schultz said months ago, we were speaking about what Limbaugh said just days earlier. Friendo, you missed the boat, you should have tried to figure out how to write a blog expressing you distain for what he said to Ms Ingraham back when he said it. It at least would have given you or the Ed Shultz comparison a little more credibility.
Here is something that I did find interesting though, I don't see where you expressed your displeasure with what Shultz said. For all I know, you think that he as well as Limbaugh are correct in their views of women.
Your efforts were to spin this away from the real indignation that Americans are feeling towards this de-facto leader of the conservatives by attempting to have us apologize for what Shultz said months ago. You keep the spin going by trying to define motives, and changing the reasoning for your comments. As Issa stated: "Last week there was a hearing that was spun, it was terrible spun. We all saw it." - yep, we all saw it.
The bigger issue is that in state houses across the country, long established women's rights, and women's health concerns are under attack. Many of these attacks are being justified on the basis of religious freedoms. I saw this very reasoning being used by a renegade sect of Amish who are on trial for looking to control the neighboring sects through intimidation. This renegade sect went through the Amish community and attacked those who spoke out against them by shaving off the beards of the men, and the hair of the men and women. They are now arguing that this is a religious matter and they should be constitutionally be free to do so. To bring a little humor to this story, the sect is lead by a family named Mullet..... get it, haircut... Mullet.
Women, you may want to reread the Bible before and after the four gospels to see what rules will be put upon you under the reasoning that its a biblical law. Like the obedience to your husband, and your silence in church, or the one that says that you should have your head covered when you leave your house so god doesn't see your hair. Sounds far fetched doesn't it, kind of like making a law that would require a doctor to preform an unneeded, government mandated, vaginally invasive ultrasound prior to a constitutionally legal surgical procedure. Come on, its crazy, this would never happen in 21st century America, what are you thinking?
Here is the crazy part, women make up 51% of the population, and they are the largest consistent voting block. You can count on the women to go to the polls! The conservatives are rudderless.
Ordinarily the questioning of intent is mostly avoided and the benefit of doubt is extended, but sometimes uncertainty can be unknowingly created and motivation can be questioned as a result of a sufficient amount of expressed incongruous observations.
"TheSovereign, I appreciate the link. The song was deeply touching. His lyrics certainly help keep life in perspective. Thanks" - Thanks for reminding me of him, it gave me the opportunity to think of my dad.
Repeated incongruous political observations often lend well towards a general reduction of credibility.
Though for years I've listened to "talk" radio I've never been a listener or fan of Rush. There is no doubt that he was wrong in how he stated what the real issue is.
Should an entity of a Church be forced to provide something that they believe is intrinsically evil? Where is the separation of Church and state?
The Catholic Church for almost 2,000 yrs. has done works of mercy to all peoples without regard to who the are. Hospitals, orphanages, adoption centers, food/shelter/clothing for the poor, education to improve the quality of life and society in general have ALWAYS been part of Church teaching. Starting with it's founder Jesus the Christ.
Leo, the only 'issue' rush was interested in was attacking a woman...
This is not a religious issue, it's a womens rights issue. You are either for it or against it. Pick a side.
You can stop bringing Jesus into the picture, he is busy helping Tebow with his posing technique before the next football season starts...
Most conservatives and liberals love to listen to The El Rushbo, and these Advertisers will back when the heat cools off and with new hefty contracts to fatten Rushes wallet up some and apologize to him while licking his boots.
I take it you guys haven't figured out Rush is a shock jock and now he's got your attention.
I personally don't listen to him anymore for that reason alone. But that's me....:}
I don't think too many liberals listen to Rush, unless its on clips played on MSNBC.
I never have, nor have I every watched Howard Stern, they are both useless to me and I wouldn't waste my time.
This is and interesting post on how the bible is used to attack woman on many levels.
A wife is a man’s property
Daughters can be bought and sold:
A raped daughter can be sold to her rapist:
Collecting wives and sex slaves is a sign of status:
Used brides deserve death:
Women, but only virgins, are to be taken as spoils of war:
Menstruating women are spiritually unclean:
A woman is twice as unclean after giving birth to a girl as to a boy:
A woman’s promise is binding only if her father or husband agrees:
Women should be seen and not heard
Wives should submit to their husband’s instructions and desires:
In case you missed that submission thing.
More submission – and childbearing as a form of atonement:
Women were created for men:
Sleeping with woman is dirty:
Larry, Georgetown is a Catholic University.
I can't say how non-Christians and other Christians interpet the the old or new covenants of the bible. I do know how the Church that Jesus the Christ established and that Church inspired by the Holy Spirit put the complete bible together intepets ALL Scripture. Through the lense of Jesus who is Love.
Except for the commandments Christ fulfilled everything in the old covenant. He said on the cross "it is finished".
Have a blessed day.
Nice fantasy there Leo, the church and the bible were set up by the Contantine as a means to control the masses. Just for the record, there is no first hand accounts of Jesus in the bible. They didn't follow the power structure that was needed to control the masses so they were left out.
So Leo, do you follow your bible to the extreme like a good follower should? Or do you pick a choose like most Christians?
Leo,"Larry, Georgetown is a Catholic University."
Did I say otherwise?
Oh, just what church is it that Jesus himself established?
Here is an article that I found this morning that supports what I have been stating concerning the disconnect between Christianity and the teachings of Jesus:
(before clicking on the link above you will need to remove the * from between v*s - thank you idiot censor...)
Just keeping it in perspective.....
that was very interesting,thanks for the link.
I sincerely believe many are confused as to what Jesus must of taught,and the stark contrast as to what "Christianity" teaches.
The difference being as night and day.
Everyone is certainly entitled to believe as they will ,but if one is a believer in Jesus a kind,loving,gentle soul who wanted nothing more then to help humans, then Christianity logically goes against almost all of the teachings of Jesus.
It's purely my opinion but I believe that what must of been the truest religion "The Teachings Of Jesus's " has mostly been wiped out by Christian Religion .
Christian Religion is man made.
As was the Bible.
Again,just my opinion
this was not written by some CEO writing for a liberal propaganda sheet
What Is Christian Faith?
By Karen Hollowell, eHow Contributor
The Christian faith is based on Jesus Christ and His resurrection. It is an active faith requiring belief in God and a trusting acceptance of His will. For the Christian, faith is continually strengthened by enduring difficult life experiences while acknowledging that God is in control. Faith is recognizing that God, through Jesus, has revealed Himself to man and desires that all come to Him for salvation.
Christian faith is unique in that it was established on the fact of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A Christian's entire belief system is based on the word, actions, and promises of Jesus whom they believe is with God the Father, in Heaven, waiting to return to Earth to claim those who truly have accepted Him as Lord.
Christian faith involves seeking and knowing Christ with heart, body, mind and soul. Believers build up their faith through Bible study, prayer and fellowship with other Christians
Christian faith is not just knowledge and awareness of Jesus as Savior; it also requires actions that profess beliefs, like a Christian lifestyle that reflects Godly choices and attitudes.
Christian faith imparts a true peace of heart, mind and spirit within the believer that grows stronger every day if she is nurturing her relationship with God through His word and prayer. This intimate knowledge of God gives Christians the courage to entrust their physical and spiritual lives to Him.
Christians are secure in the knowledge that there is a God, that He sent His Son to dwell with men, and that He sent the Holy Spirit as our comforter. Christians are also secure in believing that they will live eternally with their Savior and praise God forever.
Matthew author of the Book Matthew was a Disciple of Jesus and walked with Him for 3 years
John Also a disciple of Jesus who walked with Him for 3 years.
Luke author of the Book of Luke and the Book of Acts was a physician a learned man who interviewed first hand the disciples and others for his writtings..
It should be noted that "Christians" is a term meaning "little Christs" actually in place 300 years prior to Constantine who only started what became the Roman Catholic Church which was "reformed" by Martin Luther ..
A lot of misconceptions of the Christian Faith on this blogs based on LIES
From Jesus to Constantine: 30--313
Birth, Growth, Change
Imagine a time when Christians had no written Gospels but only a spoken tradition of the sayings and stories of Jesus. So it was for the earliest Christians.
Between Jesus' life and the year 313, the church went through many changes. At first, Christians' Scriptures were only the Jewish Law and the Prophets and some of the Jewish Writings, such as the Psalms. Though they used simple affirmations of faith, such as "Jesus is Lord," they did not have formal creeds or confessions. Worship was not highly structured and existed in a variety of forms.
The Center Shifts
The earliest center of Christianity was Jerusalem but, in 70 A.D. a Jewish revolt failed. The Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. These events were a major turning for both Judaism and Christianity.
This relief from the Arch of Titus in Rome, ca. 81 A.D., commemorates the end of the Jewish Wars. The spoils from the Temple at Jerusalem, the table of shewbread, the seven-branched candlestick, and the silver trumpets, are carried triumphantly into the city.
After 70, Christians became dispersed, moving out more and more beyond Israel. Christianity increasingly became Hellenized. Greek, not Aramaic, became the primary language of Christians. Instead of Jerusalem, three cities:
Antioch in Syria
Alexandria in Egypt
and Rome in Italy
became the most important centers for Christian communities.
They may claim there were no written gospels BUT they had writen letters in hand. Example Luke says in ACts 1:1
The first account I composed, Theophilus about all that Jesus began to do and teach
2) until the day He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spiorit given orders to the Apostles whom He had chosen.
Matthew written prior to 70 AD
Mark between 50 and 80 AD
John between 80 and 90 AD
The Book of Revelation by John from the ISLE OF PATMOS WAS WRITTEN prior to 96AD
NOTE all of these books were LONG before Constantine.
as far as the misconception by Sov. from above
"Nice fantasy there Leo, the church and the bible were set up by the Contantine as a means to control the masses. Just for the record, there is no first hand accounts of Jesus in the bible"
Froom Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us
2)just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed down to us
3)it seemed fitting for me as well having investigated everything carefully from the beginningto write it out for youin consecutive order, most excelent Theophilus;
4)so that you may know the excat truth about the things you have been taughht.
PS: it should be noted the Jewish culture from the beginning has been careful to teach accurately and faithfuly by word of mouth.which is how the scriptures were handed down until Moses put the first 5 books in writing.
If Sov and Baca can be SO misguided about the Christian Faith it would stand to reason they could be easily misguided politics as well
You don't have to be a history student of the bible to look for information.
you stated the following
Matthew author of the Book Matthew was a Disciple of Jesus and walked with Him for 3 years"
The Book of Matthew
Who wrote Matthew's Gospel?
Then it goes on to say Probably Matthew!
Probably is not a certainty.
The title comes from the "assumed author" of the book
many scholars believe that it was written some time after St. Matthew's death by an unknown person
The author did not have any first hand knowledge of the life of Jesus and therefore the author could not have been the disciple called Matthew. We are back in the position where we do not know the name of the author
The disciples of Jesus have never been proved to be the authors of any writings that went into the Bible.
The gospels were written a long, long time after the events they describe were supposed to have happened by people who weren’t there
Logic would dictate that the apostles were long passed away by then.
The Bible,beautiful tho it might be is a book compiled of stories.
I place my faith on a higher plane then that.
Here's a saying I like by "Teddy Lee Brown"
Don't get me wrong; I might be a born-again heretic, but I have an appropriate, sane respect for the Bible, even if not necessarily everyone's interpretation and application of it. But one of the advantages of believing in God more than a Bible is it allows me to respectfully say to those who believe in a Bible more than they do God: “That ain't right.”
Notice how Native, in a debate about the legitimacy of the Bible, uses as his proof, quotes from the very same Bible being debated.
Roze has it right, none of the authors could have possibly had first hand knowledge of the events written about Jesus.
As for Martin Luther, well there has been dozens of Martin Luthers, hasn't there?
Oh, I didn't know Moses wrote the first 5 books of Bible I. A book, by the way, that retells the very same stories told thousands of years prior. Like the great flood, Adam and Eve, etc...
And if Moses wrote the first 5 books, where are they now? Where are the stone tablets where God wrote the ten commandments? I know, Moses destroyed them in anger but God knew Moses would do that, being the all knowing God and all, so why didn't he write them on Titanium tablets so they would last forever. Oh, yeah, he hadn't gotten that far into creation yet, right?
Good scary stories to tell the kids around the campfire but then they were good scary stories thousands of years before as well. They are good scary stories even today, but the kids are getting smarter and don't fall for that kind of stuff so easily now. Most know that man didn't run around with Dinosaurs like the Flintstones and you couldn't possibly fit two of every earth creature into one boat and Adam and Eve couldn't have populated the world without some major incest going on and the tower of Babel is just crazy talk.
Just for the record the who wrote the Gospels, Acts, and Hebrews comes from Church Tradition. Yes the Church that has an Apostalic succession of laying on of hands for ordaining their bishops, deacons and priests. (B.T.W. all these and the process are also in the bible.
All of the 73 books of the bible are a historical documnent. The books mankind uses for ancient history have much less proof and many times are just one person's reporting of the event.
From that same Church Tradition (called Catholic in about 110 a.d. by St. Ignatius of Antioch) came the Canon of the Bible by the guidance of the Holy Spirit (3rd Person of the Trinity) working through men. They defined it just before 400 a.d. because there where several hundred gospels, epistles and apocalyptic letters around that were causing much confusion.
There are numerous historical letters from the one Church Christ established. Christ established a Church not a book. We are a Church of the Word not a book.
Leo, I have no idea what "laying of the hands means" I was raised a Catholic and never heard that term and never ran across it in the Bible we read. Maybe it's in your particular Bible, after all there are many versions with more to come for sure.
The 73 books you speak of is also foreign to me but in any case are not a "historical document", maybe your churches historical document but not a public historical document. You say that mankind uses for ancient history have less proof and are many times just one person's reporting of the event, which isn't true. But by your logic, if just one person writes something, it is probably suspect therefore if say the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of Mathew was written by just one person, they must also be suspect. Right? If not, then you must admit the Gospels were all written by many people, not just one, and not the person it is named after.
You are correct in stating that there were many writings (Gospels) and they were indeed confusing because they all had different themes. That is why Constantine, the Emperor of Rome chose just four Gospels and banned the rest, mostly Gnostic Gospels. Gospels like the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Judas were found during the 1970s, near Beni Masah, Egypt and were dated to around 260 AD, therefore they could not have been written by Judas or Peter, the same can be said of the rest of the Gospels. Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church. All other Christian Churches are splinters of that first Church.
No one knows the real authors of the Gospels, the whole holy spirit thing, or as it was known in my day, the holy gst (as in Casper), is a man made story to give the gospels some kind of legitimacy.
The nice thing is, as native has shown, you can make up anything you want, and who is to say otherwise, since the whole thing is made up in the first place.
It's your religion, and you can say anything you want about it, but once you start forcing it into my life, then I will call a spade a spade.
May your religion satisfy your needs and bring you peace.
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Budha
Larry here is an article that can explain the "laying on hands" and apostolic succession better than I. The Apostles also lay hands on Barnabas and Paul in Acts.
I didn't say my logic was if just one person writes about an event or group of events that is was suspect. Jesus established a Church and Rocky (Peter) as it's first leader (Mt.16:17) and in Jesus also states how to address issues with others being the final say is with the Church (Mt.18:15-18). Paul also tells Timothy the Church is the pillar and foundation (not Scripture alone).
There is no written proof of Constantine approving any gospels. He did call the bishops of the Church together to get to address some controversies and heresies that were going on. It was the Pope and the bishops that declared the Canon of Scripture. Of course the priest Martin Luther was the one who started the removing of 7 books in the old covenant. Strange how the 1611 KJV had those books in them though. What they found were most likely copies of copies in Egypt.
The falsehood about Constantine is a very old (post M.L.) anti-Catholic slurr. Again the oldest written letter mentioning the Cathoilc Church is in about 107-110 a.d. by Ignatius of Antioch. In a letter in 107 he also mentions bout the Eucharist being the true Body and Blood of Jesus the Christ.
Lunch is over have to go. God bless brother.
Leo, like Native,in a debate about the legitimacy of the Bible, you use as your proof, quotes from the very same Bible being debated.
It is only logical to assume Constantine approved which Gospels would be used. Remember, he was the Emperor of Rome. Do you really think his word wasn't the final say?
You are obviously a believer in your particular brand of Christianity just as a devout Muslim is a believer in his religion, neither of which make it fact. There is no logic to the Adam and Eve story or the Great Flood Story, or the whole Tower of Babel story, none. It doesn't even make logical sense. Anyway, you can go on believing but I think I will stick to reality.