Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:34 PM Jul 2014

Hey "some" men of DU

if you feel the need to down play the Hobby Lobby decision
if you feel the need to think righteous anger is "hair on fire"
if you feel the need to diminish the righteous anger by pointing out condoms aren't covered by insurance
if you feel the need to point out that it's only 4 types of contraception that aren't covered (which in fact is an out and out lie)
if you feel the need to say that women can still pay extra for their contraception therefore no rights are infringed upon
if you feel the need to call women who are concerned and angry over the decision hysterical

Kindly go fuck yourself.

361 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hey "some" men of DU (Original Post) boston bean Jul 2014 OP
+ a brazilion undeterred Jul 2014 #1
x 2...nt StopTheNeoCons Jul 2014 #135
BOSTON BEAN! I LOVE YOU! HUGS! roguevalley Jul 2014 #150
Luv U too! boston bean Jul 2014 #209
Hear Hear, Ma'am The Magistrate Jul 2014 #2
they're allowing our health car to be a wedge issue, which encourages RW voters to show up.... bettyellen Jul 2014 #3
No what the five Justices did was to re-unite the base of voters who are truedelphi Jul 2014 #162
There are guys saying that? Katashi_itto Jul 2014 #4
a-yup... boston bean Jul 2014 #5
What clueless pricks. They obviously can't see it's a slippery slope. Katashi_itto Jul 2014 #6
and a few suggesting topless protests are great, but boycotts bad. bettyellen Jul 2014 #70
Agree! Just saw a few posts too. Total morons. Katashi_itto Jul 2014 #77
They are Conservatives. Each and every one of them. FSogol Jul 2014 #86
they are not fooling anyone, and have taken over the hosts' forum and dragged DU bettyellen Jul 2014 #211
True. n/t FSogol Jul 2014 #217
He could fix that, if he wanted to. Jamastiene Jul 2014 #289
exactly- at this point, posters are emboldened to suggest Obama resign, and women show their tits? bettyellen Jul 2014 #291
I have not seen any indication that DURHAM D Jul 2014 #306
I hate to think he enjoys the extra clicks. But that "educate them" directive is bullshit. bettyellen Jul 2014 #311
If he doesn't know it, he must have worked awfully hard to avoid knowing it. Squinch Jul 2014 #336
Those moron topless posts have to be from women haters. nt valerief Jul 2014 #103
WTF???? BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2014 #166
one is a GD host even! PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #172
what. the. FUCK???????????? BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2014 #174
here's one PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #175
I saw a topless post but assumed it was from a Woman so I jokingly said yeah... randys1 Jul 2014 #176
I was surprised you went long with it, because you are usually awesome..... But you know what- bettyellen Jul 2014 #212
It was a total fluke on my part, i can try and find it, i thought it was a lib Woman randys1 Jul 2014 #214
I guess it's all just a big joke to that one... nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #228
What a creep. Squinch Jul 2014 #312
Courtesy of the hosts, yeah- *some* of them make fun of feminists all the time. bettyellen Jul 2014 #213
I'm not sure about juries.... BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2014 #240
You mean in the host forum? Openly make fun of feminists? Squinch Jul 2014 #321
I mean they come out in GD and post "show us your tits" and they call us a "group" in hosts that bettyellen Jul 2014 #322
That's, actually, not surprising. It's beginning to feel like whack-a-mole here with the thinly Squinch Jul 2014 #323
a yup... jeff47 Jul 2014 #19
Ya, hence this response of mine that I thought might earn me my first hide in a while... stevenleser Jul 2014 #87
oh, ffs. what a total asshole. PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #91
Good cartoon. I put that OP on Ignore. valerief Jul 2014 #105
thank you for taking one for the team, Steve. The anti feminist alerters are rough here. bettyellen Jul 2014 #112
Read it and weep. KamaAina Jul 2014 #139
Yeah. I pointed out one of them in a new thread and Ilsa Jul 2014 #163
Here's another dude telling us wimminfolk to simmer down and not get all outragey: Arugula Latte Jul 2014 #171
Quoting Freddy.. "turned out to be media manipulation of the left wing." Just wow.... Katashi_itto Jul 2014 #173
So sick of those folks. so sick randys1 Jul 2014 #181
Yikes! The Roux Comes First Jul 2014 #7
I know I was horrified by this. AverageJoe90 Jul 2014 #17
So let it be written, so let it be done betsuni Jul 2014 #8
Amen (from an agnostic) hlthe2b Jul 2014 #9
Very very very few men of DU feel that way. HERVEPA Jul 2014 #10
Therefore the qualifier of 'some'. boston bean Jul 2014 #11
For clarification - why is some in quotations? el_bryanto Jul 2014 #92
right. boston bean Jul 2014 #93
Thank you for clarifying. nt el_bryanto Jul 2014 #95
It's sad that any do. nt sheshe2 Jul 2014 #12
I've seen a few his-terical posts from them leftstreet Jul 2014 #14
I prefer the term... excringency Jul 2014 #38
Welcome to DU, excringency! calimary Jul 2014 #152
Agreed. Almost all DU men know this situation is an equality issue for them as much as for women. ancianita Jul 2014 #22
Good to know. smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #39
But those that do are among the most vocal and there are more of them every day. Squinch Jul 2014 #337
Thank you bean. nt sheshe2 Jul 2014 #13
*Raises voice in agreement* BootinUp Jul 2014 #15
You ladies need to put all of this energy into baking us dudes a pie. onehandle Jul 2014 #16
I WILL KICK PIE-JOKING ONEHANDLE ASS Skittles Jul 2014 #31
First let me make it clear that I am not one of those "some" men........ wandy Jul 2014 #18
You get a huge hug here and now. sheshe2 Jul 2014 #37
"It's as important to you as it is to her" VWolf Jul 2014 #107
Well said, boston bean! DesertDiamond Jul 2014 #20
For me, the HL decision just keeps sinking deeper and deeper in. Stunning. And then to have to fight Hekate Jul 2014 #21
Someone had to say it! liberalmuse Jul 2014 #23
+1000! n/t ColesCountyDem Jul 2014 #24
I agree. The decision is atrocious, and not too surprisingly it breaks on ideological lines. Warren DeMontague Jul 2014 #25
Thanks for the post. It's a timely reminder to men about "jokes." ancianita Jul 2014 #26
We all need to be pissed about the Hobby Lobby decision davidpdx Jul 2014 #27
I think the women of DU are reacting very normally to the decision steve2470 Jul 2014 #28
Thank YOU! smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #29
THANK YOU Skittles Jul 2014 #30
Its really too bad that a statement like that would be required on this site. FreedRadical Jul 2014 #32
Well said. William769 Jul 2014 #33
Jury results: Tanuki Jul 2014 #34
I especially love the first juror's liberalhistorian Jul 2014 #43
right on. amen. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #48
so with you, and the OP. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2014 #49
Love your Cat Gif... trumad Jul 2014 #82
lol!!! thanks! BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2014 #120
+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #74
Thank you for stating this! boston bean Jul 2014 #83
Fuckin A! redqueen Jul 2014 #111
Dear Juror #7 = I agree. Last line needs editing. Please delete the word :Kindly: Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #46
That's what I thought, too betsuni Jul 2014 #69
The DU Jury system is fucked. onehandle Jul 2014 #50
How about using rightwing court punishment on alerters randys1 Jul 2014 #182
Excellent jury! BainsBane Jul 2014 #68
LOL. Looks like this jury voted to nullify... PatrickforO Jul 2014 #109
That's a very pleasant surprise eom wryter2000 Jul 2014 #125
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service William769 Jul 2014 #35
Excellent! Solly Mack Jul 2014 #36
Bravo and Brava to the jury! sheshe2 Jul 2014 #40
It was the right thing to do. William769 Jul 2014 #41
Thank you! I wish juror #1 liberalhistorian Jul 2014 #44
That'd be me. redqueen Jul 2014 #110
well done, RQ! bettyellen Jul 2014 #113
Good job, RQ! liberalhistorian Jul 2014 #141
i'm glad you were on that jury, rq PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #178
LOl, William.. I was wondering if anybody might alert on this Cha Jul 2014 #57
Woo hoo! greatauntoftriplets Jul 2014 #185
i'm glad you were on that jury, Bill!! PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #196
Hey some alerter of this thread! Please re-read the OP! BootinUp Jul 2014 #42
.....sideways. n/t ohheckyeah Jul 2014 #45
even thinking something is a crime hfojvt Jul 2014 #47
Are you confused that RW anti women bullshit should be welcome here? bettyellen Jul 2014 #66
he's a perpetual victim noiretextatique Jul 2014 #153
Again, you need to read these OP's before you comment on them. Read this one carefully. Squinch Jul 2014 #97
if you feel the need to think I missed something hfojvt Jul 2014 #127
And no one is surprised. Squinch Jul 2014 #129
about what? hfojvt Jul 2014 #137
not at all eom noiretextatique Jul 2014 #154
wtf are you talking about? La Lioness Priyanka Jul 2014 #294
What are you talking out of? CreekDog Jul 2014 #310
Great list - here's another "it's only a few closely held corporations" (so far). & "a very narrow progree Jul 2014 #51
Their "clarification" today made it broad enough to cover every Catholic owned business Warpy Jul 2014 #52
I'm hoping most Catholic owned businesses won't opt for that or even want to progree Jul 2014 #59
Here's 8 Minnesota companies - 5 of the 8 say they are Catholic progree Jul 2014 #63
and without crosses on thier logo how are we VanillaRhapsody Jul 2014 #102
Thanks for posting. I know people who are in a position to boycott some of these myrna minx Jul 2014 #131
I just had someone tell me that one can always get another job or pay for their own insurance. cui bono Jul 2014 #72
And if you feel the need to say ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #53
LOL Cha Jul 2014 #58
That whole thread was just one big troll train wreck. Squinch Jul 2014 #338
Yep ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #340
*groan* smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #350
It amazes me ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #54
I imagine them reacting to the infamous Dred Scott opinion: lovemydog Jul 2014 #60
LOL ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #96
OR: You could go to Canada, so it's not that big a deal. OR: Its REAL danger is in the Squinch Jul 2014 #339
LOL ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #361
BECAUSE it's not about them BainsBane Jul 2014 #61
Bingo ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #89
I took the test and scored a 6. eom. 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #145
I scored a 2. I am not sure that's very healthy. smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #351
In a nutshell... Number23 Jul 2014 #165
They know far more than we do. sheshe2 Jul 2014 #71
Aah Marblehead mcar Jul 2014 #108
It's not the liberals saying that stuff. cui bono Jul 2014 #73
Each and every person that has written the above statements ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #94
Yes, they are liberals and Dems. Among feminists elsewhere they are commonly referred to as redqueen Jul 2014 #115
most of these people are socially conservative noiretextatique Jul 2014 #155
Thank you for not falling for that.The disingenous "liberals can't be sexist/racist/homophobic" crap Number23 Jul 2014 #167
By definition sexist/racist/homophobic ARE NOT LIBERALS. How do they qualify for the label of rhett o rick Jul 2014 #243
Racism is a stew in which this entire country has been steeped. Number23 Jul 2014 #269
So you think that only you "live in the real world"? A bit audacious dont you think? rhett o rick Jul 2014 #279
Like I said, you just keep telling yourself that. Perhaps one day you'll convince yourself Number23 Jul 2014 #319
BY DEFINITION, RACISTS ARE NOT LIBERAL. Being liberal means, by definition, you are not racist. rhett o rick Jul 2014 #327
KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT. SHOUT it if you need to Number23 Jul 2014 #330
"The Rest of Us Know Better". Really. You need to hate so badly you dont care who rhett o rick Jul 2014 #331
You are so invested in your fantasy you are calling the truth "hate" Number23 Jul 2014 #332
Yeah, after posting I realized you are probably right. cui bono Jul 2014 #270
And every single one of them seems to claim that they spend all their Squinch Jul 2014 #341
Yep ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #342
It amazes me that you use this opportunity to trash liberals. "And the liberals on DU" Apparently rhett o rick Jul 2014 #138
First, I am speaking of a particular sub-set of DU ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #144
" First, I am speaking of a particular sub-set of DU" No you werent. You were very clear. rhett o rick Jul 2014 #146
B.S. ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #148
because they are not liberals noiretextatique Jul 2014 #156
But as you have pointed out ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #160
again...they are not liberal noiretextatique Jul 2014 #275
If you think I am offended you give yourself too much credit. rhett o rick Jul 2014 #242
I rarely say this; but ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #252
People that are bigots, sexists, misogynists are not liberal by definition. rhett o rick Jul 2014 #255
And/But ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #260
I apologize if I overreacted. I am sensitive about supposed "politically liberals" attacking rhett o rick Jul 2014 #261
I am working to see Democrats ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #263
I will work extra hard for progressives, but sorry, I have seen too many Blue Dogs stab rhett o rick Jul 2014 #265
In truth ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #278
I will agree with you on paper. But if a Democrat supported Dick Cheney's war crimes, rhett o rick Jul 2014 #280
I agree ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #285
The term "reality" gets bandied about. I see the current "reality" as not having rhett o rick Jul 2014 #287
"Chuck a rock ... the dog that yelps, be the dog done got hit." Number23 Jul 2014 #168
For the life of me ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #231
Yes I totally agree. If you are chucking rocks at liberals then liberals will yelp. But why rhett o rick Jul 2014 #239
He's chucking rocks only at the people who behave a certain way. cyberswede Jul 2014 #244
This message was self-deleted by its author rhett o rick Jul 2014 #247
Seriously? cyberswede Jul 2014 #250
This message was self-deleted by its author rhett o rick Jul 2014 #253
I think we'll have to agree to disagree... cyberswede Jul 2014 #257
I will admit that I may have overreacted. I have a large chip on my shoulder. rhett o rick Jul 2014 #286
No biggie... cyberswede Jul 2014 #288
Just like many meet complaints about ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #301
Thank you ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #300
Thank YOU! smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #356
liberal is a label BainsBane Jul 2014 #333
My point is that those that are racist, homophobic, sexist, are not by definition liberal. rhett o rick Jul 2014 #334
And then we get bizarre posts and even OPs telling us that no one should judge anyone's beliefs! Arugula Latte Jul 2014 #296
I know, huh? ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #302
Glad you like! Arugula Latte Jul 2014 #326
K&R Change has come Jul 2014 #55
Damn straight. Bobbie Jo Jul 2014 #56
Righteous Rant!!! alittlelark Jul 2014 #62
By golly I believe we have reached the "fuck ALL y'all" threshold! nolabear Jul 2014 #64
kick! bettyellen Jul 2014 #65
Literally. grahamhgreen Jul 2014 #67
amen. k&r MerryBlooms Jul 2014 #75
Thank you, thank you, thank you! etherealtruth Jul 2014 #76
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #78
Thank you. JTFrog Jul 2014 #79
Yep, fuck the mragynists. demmiblue Jul 2014 #80
Same here. nt redqueen Jul 2014 #116
... Boom Sound 416 Jul 2014 #81
well I already liked the post CreekDog Jul 2014 #309
Sing it, sister. PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #84
K&R! myrna minx Jul 2014 #85
IMHO, a judicious and effective use of the work "fuck" planetc Jul 2014 #88
That's the only kind of fucking they deserve ismnotwasm Jul 2014 #90
I'm going to add one: If you think the damage from this ruling lies only in the "slippery slope," Squinch Jul 2014 #98
Hear, hear! nt redqueen Jul 2014 #117
Well said and I am greatly familiar with that attitude, often out of the same people, toward LGBT Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #99
Yep, and race issues as well. redqueen Jul 2014 #118
What a marvelous post! Might I also add, "Go fuck yourself and get pregnant." nt valerief Jul 2014 #100
And these "some" men forget ann--- Jul 2014 #101
+1! SammyWinstonJack Jul 2014 #121
This whole issue is the fault of conservative judges appointed by Republicans IronLionZion Jul 2014 #104
Hey, any male out there who is OK with the HL decision: Hepburn Jul 2014 #106
rec! SammyWinstonJack Jul 2014 #114
Right on BB! Could not be more obvious. UtahLib Jul 2014 #119
Do you know the proper use of quotation marks? Javaman Jul 2014 #122
Fresh "Fish" Warren DeMontague Jul 2014 #157
Exactly. Thank you for illustrating what is so horribly wrong and sexist about this OP. nt Electric Monk Jul 2014 #158
I just think that unnecessary quotes website is hysterically "funny". Warren DeMontague Jul 2014 #159
FFS Warren. boston bean Jul 2014 #187
It doesn't need quotes, that's the point. Warren DeMontague Jul 2014 #199
I don't want to have an argument with you. boston bean Jul 2014 #202
It does not actually rise to the level of me not liking it. Warren DeMontague Jul 2014 #205
"what is so horribly wrong and sexist about this OP." geek tragedy Jul 2014 #207
I did not alert on this thread, though I did think about doing so. "Thanks" for caring though. nt Electric Monk Jul 2014 #234
Sorry, I'm still laughing at your claim geek tragedy Jul 2014 #249
Don't be absurd. cyberswede Jul 2014 #246
Improper use of punctuation can drastically alter meaning. Electric Monk Jul 2014 #256
Well, you can't use bold or italics for emphasis thread titles... cyberswede Jul 2014 #259
"Jesus" is coming Warren DeMontague Jul 2014 #206
We're "saved!" BootinUp Jul 2014 #208
"Unnecessary" quotation marks totally "change the meaning" of these "signs" Electric Monk Jul 2014 #262
Those of us who have seen the outrageous stage left Jul 2014 #216
Well allow me to introduce myself... Javaman Jul 2014 #277
and yet, Sherman A1 Jul 2014 #123
Heh. Sheldon Cooper Jul 2014 #134
I'm a 59 year old man, and... MarianJack Jul 2014 #124
This is a discussion board, not an echo chamber or protected group. Comrade Grumpy Jul 2014 #126
WTF? I think you are saying you agree. So why the cracks about echo chambers, protected groups Squinch Jul 2014 #132
Good question. nt redqueen Jul 2014 #142
Absofuckinglutely! ReRe Jul 2014 #128
Well, since you're obviously not referring to me... derby378 Jul 2014 #130
What does that mean? Do you have something you want to say? Squinch Jul 2014 #133
k&r Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #136
How about we give them a hashtag that they can embrace: riqster Jul 2014 #140
Ok, that made me snort. myrna minx Jul 2014 #293
My work here is done. riqster Jul 2014 #295
always amazed when men WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER geek tragedy Jul 2014 #143
No, they don't understand how oafish they sound. They think they are rational, sage, and wise. n/t MadrasT Jul 2014 #147
*sigh* smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #354
I'll add to that. Helen Borg Jul 2014 #149
well said Rider3 Jul 2014 #151
Real men stand with women. Efilroft Sul Jul 2014 #161
Hear, hear! smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #353
You think this court decision was about gender? JohnnyRingo Jul 2014 #164
Oh, FFS. I nominate you as the poster child for the "You're alienating your allies and it's all Squinch Jul 2014 #179
To answer you boston bean Jul 2014 #180
Yeah, attacks on contraception and abortion have NOTHING to do with gender. geek tragedy Jul 2014 #195
This ruling is about exemption for religious reasons JohnnyRingo Jul 2014 #224
That you claim that this ruling's nexus geek tragedy Jul 2014 #226
Then you must assume the majority of the Supreme Court... JohnnyRingo Jul 2014 #266
Speaking of clueless: geek tragedy Jul 2014 #267
There are Catholics that dissented as well JohnnyRingo Jul 2014 #305
Today's Wheaton ruling appears to further undercut geek tragedy Jul 2014 #328
I hadn't heard. Here's the story for anyone else who missed it (another F.U. from the Sup. Court to progree Jul 2014 #329
Well, one. Sotomayoro. smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #358
How about it's both about gender and broader issues? Gormy Cuss Jul 2014 #210
Rule of thumb, If you're not sure who "certain men" are, it's YOU. hughee99 Jul 2014 #219
I don't think you know me JohnnyRingo Jul 2014 #225
I'm not commenting on you at all. hughee99 Jul 2014 #229
you just said "you don't have a dog in this particular gender fight", why do you think that is? CreekDog Jul 2014 #292
Welcome to the pile on. JohnnyRingo Jul 2014 #307
I didn't call you a name CreekDog Jul 2014 #308
I'm sure they already do. DeSwiss Jul 2014 #169
If you are here on this site, you should be fighting and arguing for equality. Rex Jul 2014 #170
Sadly, I was arguing with a woman about this last night... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #177
Many dont see it as restricting birth control, just that someone else isn't paying for it davidn3600 Jul 2014 #183
No, the issue at the court was about health insurance. boston bean Jul 2014 #186
The deicsion proves how bad ACA really is... davidn3600 Jul 2014 #194
blah blah blah blame Obamacare, blame women for getting upset geek tragedy Jul 2014 #197
I'm sorry but single payer brings this issue to the forefront even more so. boston bean Jul 2014 #200
single payer would only remove this particular excuse. geek tragedy Jul 2014 #203
Of course it's being discussed. There are many issues. boston bean Jul 2014 #198
With a public option, there wouldnt even be a case davidn3600 Jul 2014 #223
+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #357
Birth control, as part of the coverage offered by employee insurance, isn't "free." thucythucy Jul 2014 #189
Actually, it IS restricting... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2014 #191
no, there isn't truth to that, contra to what Limbaugh says. it's about an employer being allowed geek tragedy Jul 2014 #193
LIES. Birth control is not free with insurance. Why don't you educate yourself just a little bit bettyellen Jul 2014 #218
Love. Starry Messenger Jul 2014 #221
Same to you my dear, always! bettyellen Jul 2014 #222
Men kindly stay the fuck away from female reproductive Amaya Jul 2014 #184
Breathe deeply and count to 10... Brisk Jul 2014 #188
I suppose I ought to just keep my mouth shut boston bean Jul 2014 #190
Post kept 2-5. alp227 Jul 2014 #227
Stupid alert! Nothing wrong with that post. n-t Logical Jul 2014 #233
Seriously? alp227 Jul 2014 #236
Stuff a LOT worse does not get hidden. n-t Logical Jul 2014 #241
that's not an argument against hiding a certain post. alp227 Jul 2014 #245
Hardly... Brisk Jul 2014 #264
MRA bingo!!! geek tragedy Jul 2014 #268
Are you suggesting... Brisk Jul 2014 #271
Any "ally" that is going to be pushed away for me pointing out boston bean Jul 2014 #272
boston bean for the win MadrasT Jul 2014 #273
Do unto others and all that... Brisk Jul 2014 #281
Yeah, my goals align quite nicely with allies who believe in equal rights for women. boston bean Jul 2014 #282
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #297
Seriously, can't you guys come up with anything new? Ever? Because this shit is getting monotonous. Squinch Jul 2014 #313
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #315
Oh, look! We can see right through you! Are you a ghost? Squinch Jul 2014 #316
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #318
And yet you are clear as glass. Squinch Jul 2014 #320
welcome to DU. geek tragedy Jul 2014 #192
Again. Squinch Jul 2014 #314
eye of the beholder and all. i think her op was beautiful. PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #201
Naaah. They deserve that and more. Phony ass progressives. bettyellen Jul 2014 #215
Hobby Lobby and SCOTUS are the ones doing ugly things in this case. nt cyberswede Jul 2014 #248
then, why do you insist on doing it? Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #290
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #298
the part where women are Not treated with respect. Exactly. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #299
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #303
I see you are a little slow so let me break it down Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #317
looks like it got gone! Phentex Jul 2014 #344
LOL .... Profile says Troll = Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #345
I think the socks are more rampant than trolls these days... Phentex Jul 2014 #346
yes, and I think we have some Zombie Trolls who wear socks, too. = Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #347
one day we shall dance... Phentex Jul 2014 #348
I usually avoid those parties too but, I bet I see you at this one Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #349
Piss off! smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #359
Thanks, Boston bean stage left Jul 2014 #204
I have been butting heads with idiots on Discussionist who making these arguments Gothmog Jul 2014 #220
There are a few here ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #237
I do not come to DU to debate but to get information and insights Gothmog Jul 2014 #276
Well said! City Lights Jul 2014 #230
Anyone who downplays the danger of encroaching theocracy is a goddamn fool. Plain and simple. n/t nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #232
It's hard when not everyone agrees with you 100% isn't it? mysuzuki2 Jul 2014 #235
No, it's not. boston bean Jul 2014 #274
If you agree with this decision, you should honestly be ran off from DU. phleshdef Jul 2014 #325
I have been saying this for a long time. locdlib Jul 2014 #238
Great Post Thespian2 Jul 2014 #251
Tell it like it is!!! yuiyoshida Jul 2014 #254
k and r + several gazillion. niyad Jul 2014 #258
This message was self-deleted by its author Jamastiene Jul 2014 #283
I'm a woman a human being, I'm not defined as a HoF'er. boston bean Jul 2014 #284
OMG, they love to round us into groups they can demonize, LOL, don't they? bettyellen Jul 2014 #304
I'm the first to criticize extreme feminist stuff concerning word policing and sexy magazine outrage phleshdef Jul 2014 #324
Think about that, though. Squinch Jul 2014 #335
Kick. JTFrog Jul 2014 #343
as relevant today as it was last week! bettyellen Jul 2014 #352
I'm with you completely on Hobby Lobby and all the related ramifications... Silent3 Jul 2014 #355
Highly recommended AuntPatsy Jul 2014 #360
 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
3. they're allowing our health car to be a wedge issue, which encourages RW voters to show up....
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:39 PM
Jul 2014

they are fucking the Dem party up worse then nyone, by standing on the sidelines.
Fucking idiots.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
162. No what the five Justices did was to re-unite the base of voters who are
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:22 PM
Jul 2014

Left of the Republican party.

Pew Survey results Poll asking how an individual sees themselves)

Spring 2008:

I consider myself a Democratic Party loyalist -- 36% of the voters

I consider myself a Republican Party loyalist -- 22 to 24% of the voters

All the rest - 42 to 4o% of all voters.

Almost same identical stats were compiled by a Gallup poll last Autumn.

So if you unite that 36% of all voters to those in the majority (the 40 to 42% of all voters) assuming that the 40 to 42% is not all libertarians, then the Democratic party should have a shoe in. If people GOTV.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
70. and a few suggesting topless protests are great, but boycotts bad.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:03 AM
Jul 2014

they are complete assholes who re just here to mock women, and not afraid to show it anymore.

 

Katashi_itto

(10,175 posts)
77. Agree! Just saw a few posts too. Total morons.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:14 AM
Jul 2014

Discriminate against one sector of the populace and it's then permissible to discriminate against others.

I just directed my company never to buy anything from Hobby Lobby. Don't think it will help in the big picture, but it's damn satisfying.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
211. they are not fooling anyone, and have taken over the hosts' forum and dragged DU
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:36 PM
Jul 2014

into the fucking mud. Libertarians can post RW shit with impunity, and feminists get degraded here- by hosts. Because Skinner never thought they would game the system.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
289. He could fix that, if he wanted to.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:30 PM
Jul 2014

They really have gamed the system. It's a damn shame to see it like this. There are too many out and out conservatives controlling this site. It's a shame that Democrats don't have anywhere to go online where we are not gerrymandered. It's the same concept, really.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
291. exactly- at this point, posters are emboldened to suggest Obama resign, and women show their tits?
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:37 PM
Jul 2014

And the stupid tits suggestion was from a host, who is openly hostile to women here. Not one host said a thing.
They should just resign instead of being part of the degradation here.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
311. I hate to think he enjoys the extra clicks. But that "educate them" directive is bullshit.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 03:56 PM
Jul 2014

I think he is hard pressed to admit the entire system is gamed by libertarians and childish trolls.
Great sites have actual moderation- but he has allowed the hosts to opt out of all responsibility. At some points Earl G was locking more threads. Juries seem to be doing their work for them these days.

Alerters- I am just discussing the discussion here. Not whining, but stating the god's honest truth.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
176. I saw a topless post but assumed it was from a Woman so I jokingly said yeah...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:52 PM
Jul 2014

but I now see the bullshit behind it, sorry

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
212. I was surprised you went long with it, because you are usually awesome..... But you know what-
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:38 PM
Jul 2014

you can sill edit that post. Because we're being trolled by women haters and we;d be grateful if dudes stopped laughing about life and death shit like our reproductive choice. I feel incredibly unwelcome here these days.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
214. It was a total fluke on my part, i can try and find it, i thought it was a lib Woman
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:41 PM
Jul 2014

saying it...i will try and find it but it may be tough

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
213. Courtesy of the hosts, yeah- *some* of them make fun of feminists all the time.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:39 PM
Jul 2014

Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)

And most others look the other way.
So much for community anything these days. Juries are a safer bet.

BlancheSplanchnik

(20,219 posts)
240. I'm not sure about juries....
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:56 PM
Jul 2014

But I'm willing to see improvements, if there are any.

That would be nice, to see an increase in the number of people who reject misogynist behavior. It would mean "women's issues" are coming out of the hushed shadows.

The dirty, smelly, weak, stupid, girly, prudish, "no one would want to fuck you anyway", "doesn't affect me", "but what about my unlimited access to sex" shadows.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
322. I mean they come out in GD and post "show us your tits" and they call us a "group" in hosts that
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:36 PM
Jul 2014

can safely be ignored. and pretty much the others say nothing, leave the "tits" thread, ignore the bias.
I should edit to say "some" , the others only look the other way.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
323. That's, actually, not surprising. It's beginning to feel like whack-a-mole here with the thinly
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:41 PM
Jul 2014

disguised conservatives stampeding through every thread. That some of them are hosts was inevitable.

I keep thinking DU can't get uglier with respect to it's tolerance for degrading statements about women and its welcoming of anti-feminist trolls. I keep being proven wrong. It's beginning to feel like a silly form of masochism to post here.

Ilsa

(61,675 posts)
163. Yeah. I pointed out one of them in a new thread and
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:42 PM
Jul 2014

My thread was locked because it was a "call-out". I was just trying to send lots of DUers over to hammer him.

 

Katashi_itto

(10,175 posts)
173. Quoting Freddy.. "turned out to be media manipulation of the left wing." Just wow....
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:45 PM
Jul 2014

Blathering away like abortion clinic shootings never happen.....

The Roux Comes First

(1,279 posts)
7. Yikes!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:44 PM
Jul 2014

I would like to think that at least the great majority of non-troll men here are wholly aghast at the truly obnoxious HL "ruling." I suspect most of us can't help but feel remorse that the tool-kit for a male wanting to limit the chance of pregnancy is so sparse. We should be able to agree that we are in this together, sister. That is certainly my position. This was an absolutely awful paternalistic SC call by a largely out-of-touch a-legalistic RC-dominated court.

But I suspect I am a bit of a naïf on this.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
17. I know I was horrified by this.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:57 PM
Jul 2014
But I suspect I am a bit of a naïf on this.


I don't think so, TBH. There definitely do seem to be a few who really don't get the slippery slope thing, though.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
92. For clarification - why is some in quotations?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:12 AM
Jul 2014

Generally when I see that I believe that it is included facetiously - the implication is that the opposite is meant. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Bryant

leftstreet

(36,081 posts)
14. I've seen a few his-terical posts from them
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:56 PM
Jul 2014

Not much though

Although even one can produce a lot of controversy and get said poster a lot of attention

calimary

(80,700 posts)
152. Welcome to DU, excringency!
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:28 PM
Jul 2014

Glad you're here! Either way, the point is made. I think there are all kinds of directions we should try to follow, in fighting this. How 'bout let's go after that damn religious protection law that's being stretched all outta shape and is now playing center stage in the Unintended Consequences Theater. Let's go after the Hyde Amendment. Let's partner EVERY bill that involves ANY curtailment of contraceptive coverage - with a corresponding curtailment of Viagra coverage. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. This door swings both ways and we should absolutely help it do precisely that! We have to SHOW them how it hurts them, too, and how draconian approaches like this, which they assume only puts more controls on women, smacks them in the ass too.

Taste of their own medicine. See how they like it. Being nice and trying to reason with them sure doesn't work. Perhaps it's time to try a different approach.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
337. But those that do are among the most vocal and there are more of them every day.
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 08:42 AM
Jul 2014

And as bettyellen has pointed out, they are a force within the hosting group. They are steering the direction of the site, whether most men agree with them or not.

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
16. You ladies need to put all of this energy into baking us dudes a pie.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:57 PM
Jul 2014

I kid... I kid...

I don't even like pie.

"Some" men of DU can truly go fuck themselves.

wandy

(3,539 posts)
18. First let me make it clear that I am not one of those "some" men........
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:04 PM
Jul 2014

If I may, let me bring up something that "some" men may not have thought about.

It's as important to you as it is to her.

Now fellows go sit quietly somewhere and think about that.
If you don't see the logic in that you might ought to do what the lady suggested.
Likely all by your little self.

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
37. You get a huge hug here and now.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:39 PM
Jul 2014
wandy.

You got. You got it all!

"It's as important to you as it is to her."


Thank you. You got what so many did not!

VWolf

(3,944 posts)
107. "It's as important to you as it is to her"
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:50 AM
Jul 2014

And even if it weren't, empathy should be one of our greatest strengths.

Hekate

(90,202 posts)
21. For me, the HL decision just keeps sinking deeper and deeper in. Stunning. And then to have to fight
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:11 PM
Jul 2014

...about it here with people ("some" men and at least one woman) who have no intention of changing their minds ...

Well, thank you for the sentiment, boston bean.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
25. I agree. The decision is atrocious, and not too surprisingly it breaks on ideological lines.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:16 PM
Jul 2014

Points up the importance of winning presidential elections. No difference my ass.

ancianita

(35,814 posts)
26. Thanks for the post. It's a timely reminder to men about "jokes."
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:17 PM
Jul 2014


A few minutes ago, a lawyer friend of mine retracted his "jokey" post about it on FB after I'd made the case that that snark is insidious, women are snark weary and not putting up with it anymore, and how men need to recognize that this decision is also a harbinger of the fascism they'll be living under, as well, if this wannabe theocratic oligarchy gets its way. It took another male friend posting, "Yeah, this is bullshit" for him to delete the post.

steve2470

(37,457 posts)
28. I think the women of DU are reacting very normally to the decision
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:20 PM
Jul 2014

The decision effectively disenfranchises women of valuable insurance coverage and of equal rights, and opens the Pandora's Box to many ways greedy RW corporations can evade pesky laws pertaining to sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.

Which "religions" are valid ? What's a sincerely held belief that's being burdened by the state ? Can privately held companies now legally pay women much less than men because of....Leviticus or some such nonsense ? Can PHC now refuse to hire PoC because of some nonsense in the Old Testament ?

Justice Ginsberg hit the nail on the freaking head. I'm with you, DU ladies.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
29. Thank YOU!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:22 PM
Jul 2014

And if there are any DU men who feel that way (and I know a lot of you do not, so we are not speaking to you - we know you support us and we very much appreciate you!) please do not condescend to us by making us feel like we are over re-acting to this decision because it it is something that affects our lives very much.

We are hurt and upset by this. Please try to understand. Thank You!

FreedRadical

(518 posts)
32. Its really too bad that a statement like that would be required on this site.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:33 PM
Jul 2014

It is a god damn shame when you think we have been all over these grounds. People have already fought and died for rights such as choice, voting, and gay freedoms. FREEDOM. Only to find ourselves back at the starting point.

I can't say I am surprised though. We are up against some nasty and vindictive and soulless people. The reason I am not surprised is that in the last 8 years, for every gain made, some shitty vindictive payback from their side has happened. Remember that shit in California on the night this country elected its first Black President. And fox was getting off on blaming Black People for a Mormon sponsored initiative. Just as vindictive as you could possibly be. Now gay marriage is nearly the law of the land, and what happens? A vindictive attack on choice.

Now we have professional trolls on this board intellectualizing hate, and calling it discourse. Just remember fuckers, you may win your little victories, but you know and we know, you are going to lose the revolution.

Tanuki

(14,893 posts)
34. Jury results:
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:37 PM
Jul 2014

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I understand the sentiment, but go fuck yourself is a violation. Disruptive, hurtful, rude, OTT, and otherwise inappropriate. Please, we don't need this disruptive META in GD. Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:34 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Fuck that, alerter. This site has been subjected to so much misogynist bullshit since DU 3 started, much of it left to stand by juries, and lately it has increased noticeably. It is only right to let women fight back. Fair is fair.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Have absolutely no problem with this post.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It needed to be said, I am glad it hot said, and there is no way in hell I would vote to hide this. Here's to you boston bean :clapping:
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Methinks the alerter doth protest too much. Hey, alerter, are you one of those "some men"?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Under most circumstances, I'd vote to hide. But this is a response to blatant sexism. Recommend that the poster herself edit last line.
----------------------------

liberalhistorian

(20,809 posts)
43. I especially love the first juror's
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:52 PM
Jul 2014

comment infused with righteous anger! It's been truly shocking to me, as a gal, the level of outright and blatant misogyny and sexism here the past few years and the numbers of men coming out openly against feminism, claiming that DV is as bad, if not worse, for men, that men have it worse because of false accusations, that all the privileges now go to women, etc., etc. Some openly call child support "male enslavement", claim women's very real fears of being raped or assaulted to be hysterical overreaction, etc., etc. I could go on and on. And all of that shit is allowed to stand by juries. They see nonexistent misandry EVERYWHERE, but, to them, there's no such thing as sexism and women have it made in the shade. They can say what they want about women and no one is allowed to challenge them and if they do then they must be a bitter feminazi. But let a poster here tell the truth about them and they're screaming misandry, misandry, alertalertalert. And I am fucking SICK TO DEATH of it. I've been on here for eleven years, and this place didn't used to be like this at all nor did it tolerate this bullshit.

And why is it that almost every single thread devoted to discussing some aspect of sexism is derailed by posters asking "what about this or that ism, that's just as important", such threads are almost NEVER allowed to fully and completely just discuss sexism. And anyone who complains about that is just a bitter, man-hating sexist who's out to get men. GAH.

BlancheSplanchnik

(20,219 posts)
49. so with you, and the OP.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:09 AM
Jul 2014

Right on, goddammit.

Great jury result, there too. Finally, more people are seeing through these dickbrains that pollute this site.

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
46. Dear Juror #7 = I agree. Last line needs editing. Please delete the word :Kindly:
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:04 AM
Jul 2014

Thank you for your cooperation.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
182. How about using rightwing court punishment on alerters
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:03 PM
Jul 2014

i.e.

you alert on someone and if your alerting is found to be whiney or right wingy, you get a strike

PatrickforO

(14,516 posts)
109. LOL. Looks like this jury voted to nullify...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:04 AM
Jul 2014

Women need to be able to fight back. She wasn't telling anyone specific to 'f' himself, after all. It was a general comment aimed at 'those men' who don't think the HL decision was a big deal.

It was a big deal though - another skirmish in the ultra-right's war against women.

The idea that women shouldn't be equal is pretty ingrained in our culture, though. My wife and I watched a documentary yesterday that was about some books that didn't make it into the Torah or Bible. Specifically, the documentary told the story of Lilith, who was made side by side with Adam, equal. When she refused to submit to Adam, Lilith was driven away with the threat that 100 of her children would by killed by God each day she continued to refuse to submit (I guess the Judeo-Christian God is a misogynist too). Then, God, regretting that he made Lilith equal to Adam decided to make woman submissive, and Eve was made out of Adam's rib.

So there it is; completely INGRAINED in our culture. Inequality is even in our creation myths.

This is why our government must KEEP US FREE FROM RELIGION.

William769

(55,124 posts)
35. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:38 PM
Jul 2014

On Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hey "some" men of DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025181214

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I understand the sentiment, but go fuck yourself is a violation. Disruptive, hurtful, rude, OTT, and otherwise inappropriate. Please, we don't need this disruptive META in GD. Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:34 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Fuck that, alerter. This site has been subjected to so much misogynist bullshit since DU 3 started, much of it left to stand by juries, and lately it has increased noticeably. It is only right to let women fight back. Fair is fair.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Have absolutely no problem with this post.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It needed to be said, I am glad it hot said, and there is no way in hell I would vote to hide this. Here's to you boston bean :clapping:
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Methinks the alerter doth protest too much. Hey, alerter, are you one of those "some men"?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Under most circumstances, I'd vote to hide. But this is a response to blatant sexism. Recommend that the poster herself edit last line.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

For transparency, I was juror #5.

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
40. Bravo and Brava to the jury!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:47 PM
Jul 2014


I have no clue what "some" here at DU do not understand about this decision and how it effects more than just women!

BeJeebus! This is embarrassing

thanks William.

liberalhistorian

(20,809 posts)
44. Thank you! I wish juror #1
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:53 PM
Jul 2014

would come forward so that we could all give him or her a box of virtual roses!

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
110. That'd be me.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:06 AM
Jul 2014

Checked in after dinner and immediately got called to jury for this thread. What a nice surprise to see the results were 0-7

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
47. even thinking something is a crime
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:05 AM
Jul 2014

Why do people think things, anyway?

"The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent be he also refuses to hate him." p. 103

"Here, then, is the hard challenge and the sublime opportunity: to let the spirit of Christ work toward fashioning a truly great Christian nation." p. 210

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
66. Are you confused that RW anti women bullshit should be welcome here?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:30 AM
Jul 2014

thinking is a crime where? where did you get that ridiculous idea? Links?

noiretextatique

(27,275 posts)
153. he's a perpetual victim
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:36 PM
Jul 2014

Of the thought police because "some" of his views are not appreciated. Most actually.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
127. if you feel the need to think I missed something
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:24 AM
Jul 2014

you could point it out.

Still looks to me like "if you say the wrong thing, or think the wrong thing, then fu$% off."

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
137. about what?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:00 PM
Jul 2014

You said I misunderstood something, and yet cannot say what it is.

Or will not.

No one is surprised that little old me is one of the people who needs to go fuck himself.

Or no one is surprised that little old me cannot understand this OP which is all about love and compassion and understanding?

progree

(10,864 posts)
51. Great list - here's another "it's only a few closely held corporations" (so far). & "a very narrow
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:19 AM
Jul 2014

Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:57 PM - Edit history (11)

decision" (somebody on the PBS Newshour)

[font color = red]Added On Edit[/font]:

- it was a very narrow decision because:

- it's just some pills and devices for a bunch of women

- it affects only women who are dating / married to a guy too cheap to pick up the tab for the contraceptives

- abstinence is always an option

- there are other jobs out there. Nobody is making you work for a closely held corporation owned by a religious fundamentalist (thx Cui Bono)

- You can always buy your own insurance -- chances are these kinds of companies pay so little that you'll probably qualify for a huge subsidy if you buy on the ACA exchanges, maybe even Medicaid if you live in a Medicaid expansion state (thx Cui Bono)

- the ruling still doesn't allow religious conscience exemptions for transfusions, vaccinations, and so on, only just for contraceptives

- it doesn't impose Sharia law (except on this one issue)

- it's not like they took away your guns or anything really major like that

- it's not like they've let the camel into the tent, it's [font face = arial]just[/font] the camel's nose under the tent.
(The camel in the tent is the official establishment of Christian Sharia Law (Chriria). That will take many many years. In the meantime, lighten up! )

- the ruling is not taking away ALL the ACA benefits from women. Women still get SOME benefits under the ACA (so let's work on an attitude of gratitude. Turn that frown upside down)


Warpy

(110,913 posts)
52. Their "clarification" today made it broad enough to cover every Catholic owned business
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:22 AM
Jul 2014

in the country, including hospitals.

Catholic hospitals are a sick joke for women who can only expect full medical care above the waist and below the knees.

progree

(10,864 posts)
59. I'm hoping most Catholic owned businesses won't opt for that or even want to
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:44 AM
Jul 2014

I've seen surveys that American Catholics use contraception at about the same rates as Americans in general (a very high rate), despite official church doctrine, so hopefully American Catholic business owners will have the same attitudes ... but yes, I saw the "clarification" (below)


http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html

Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.


Thread dedicated to the "clarification" for anyone interested in more about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025178158

progree

(10,864 posts)
63. Here's 8 Minnesota companies - 5 of the 8 say they are Catholic
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:00 AM
Jul 2014

Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:02 PM - Edit history (2)

Here's just two of the five Catholic ones for convenience of reference --

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-minnesota-plaintiffs?WT.mc_id=_WT_AUTOGEN_VALUE_

Eight Minnesota companies were among plaintiffs affected by Monday's Supreme Court ruling that some companies with religious objections can avoid the contraceptives requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Here are the companies.

Plaintiffs: Feltl and Company, Inc., John C. Feltl and Mary Jo Feltl
Location: Minneapolis
Industry: Securities brokerage and investment banking
Excerpt from the complaint: The Feltls hold sincere religious beliefs based on the Roman Catholic Catechism which states "abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a 'criminal' practice" and which states "direct sterilization" and "contraception" are morally unacceptable.

Plaintiffs: American Mfg Company, Rev. Mr. (Deacon) Gregory E. Hall
Location: St. Joseph, Minn.
Industry: Mud pumps and parts
Excerpt from the complaint: Deacon Hall is a Roman Catholic Deacon of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston [Texas] assigned to Christ Redeemer Catholic Church where he conducts religious services and preaches...Deacon Hall is required as a Deacon to teach that contraception and abortion are sinful and morally unacceptable under Catholic religious law...Deacon Hall is also required to practice in his life, even in his business, what he preaches as a minister.


8 plaintiffs just in Minnesota. Minnesota has about 1/57 of the U.S.'s population. And I think we (Minnesotans) are less Catholic and less evangelical than the nation on average... So, nationwide, could be a lot of companies, especially considering the likelihood that only a small percentage that feel this way actually signed on as plaintiffs
 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
102. and without crosses on thier logo how are we
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:17 AM
Jul 2014

Supposed to know. I think we need an executive order that says you must publically display your religious affiliation in order to opt out of the requirement.

myrna minx

(22,772 posts)
131. Thanks for posting. I know people who are in a position to boycott some of these
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:34 AM
Jul 2014

specialized companies in MN. This is good to know.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
72. I just had someone tell me that one can always get another job or pay for their own insurance.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:39 AM
Jul 2014

Completely missing the point that it is discrimination against women and it's allowing individuals to force their religious beliefs on others.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
53. And if you feel the need to say ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:23 AM
Jul 2014

this decision was bad; but President "Obama's compromise" was just as bad, while pointing out ... twice ... how this decision differed from the compromise, well ... BB told you what to do.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
338. That whole thread was just one big troll train wreck.
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 08:50 AM
Jul 2014

Thankfully he got smacked down pretty good, but he is someone who has been spreading that manure for a long time here.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
54. It amazes me ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:32 AM
Jul 2014

How the pattern always plays out here on DU, a woman/PoC/GLBTQ member reacts to an outrageous act ... and the liberals on DU feel the need to tell us/them that we really shouldn't be upset because ... well ... because!

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
96. LOL ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:28 AM
Jul 2014

Followed by a dissertation on how terrible a decision it was because it benefits the 1% and exacerbates the income equity problem ... the slave-plaintiffs, and Africans as a class, being denied basic personage rights, under the law ... well ... the 1%!

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
339. OR: You could go to Canada, so it's not that big a deal. OR: Its REAL danger is in the
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 08:52 AM
Jul 2014

slippery slope. Yeah, it means in the short run that an entire race of people will live in eternal slavery, but it is possible that someday it will lead to decisions that affect ME!!!!112@!!!

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
89. Bingo ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:10 AM
Jul 2014

I can't decide whether this is about the privilege, or whether we are just experiencing a wave of narcissism, here at DU.

Well, here this might help:

http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/narcissistic.htm

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
71. They know far more than we do.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:05 AM
Jul 2014

We need to trust their instincts in these matters, that's what they want us to believe.

My opinion, they don't have a clue what they are talking about and probably never will. Sometimes it takes forever for dawn to break over Marblehead ( that's a metro Boston term) it fits here.

mcar

(42,210 posts)
108. Aah Marblehead
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:55 AM
Jul 2014

One of my favorite places. My sister lived there for 20 years and is now back in Boston.

Sorry for the off-topic: Boston bean is 100% correct.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
94. Each and every person that has written the above statements ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:18 AM
Jul 2014

has stated, on several occasions, that they are the really, real liberals, the defenders of liberal principles and the Democratic base ... and there are many here that break their necks to co-sign they're the really, real liberals, the defenders of liberal principles and the Democratic base.

So, No ... No quotation marks are necessary, here.

redqueen

(115,096 posts)
115. Yes, they are liberals and Dems. Among feminists elsewhere they are commonly referred to as
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:25 AM
Jul 2014

either brogressives or brocialists.

noiretextatique

(27,275 posts)
155. most of these people are socially conservative
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:42 PM
Jul 2014

But economic liberals, sort of. Thy are by no means socially liberal, no matter how loudly they proclaim to be.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
167. Thank you for not falling for that.The disingenous "liberals can't be sexist/racist/homophobic" crap
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:31 PM
Jul 2014

has been THOROUGHLY disproven for about a hundred years. And even if it hadn't, two days on DU would certainly disprove it.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
243. By definition sexist/racist/homophobic ARE NOT LIBERALS. How do they qualify for the label of
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:06 PM
Jul 2014

liberal if they dont believe the principles that are liberal? And plez dont try the "they call themselves liberal". A lot of people here call themselves liberals that arent.

Why is it so important to disparage liberals, especially in an election year?

Number23

(24,544 posts)
269. Racism is a stew in which this entire country has been steeped.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 03:18 AM
Jul 2014

You keep telling yourself that no white liberals are afflicted by it. The rest of us will continue to live in the real world.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
279. So you think that only you "live in the real world"? A bit audacious dont you think?
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 08:56 AM
Jul 2014

The very definition of liberalism excludes racists.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
319. Like I said, you just keep telling yourself that. Perhaps one day you'll convince yourself
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 05:49 PM
Jul 2014

The rest of us will CONTINUE to live in the real world where we know what you're saying is la la fantasy land foolishness that is not supported by any historical evidence. Even many abolitionists held racist tendencies.

It is apparent that you are invested in pretending that white liberals can't be racists but it's unfortunate for you that the rest of us know better.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
327. BY DEFINITION, RACISTS ARE NOT LIBERAL. Being liberal means, by definition, you are not racist.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 08:37 PM
Jul 2014

Once it's revealed a person is a racist, they lose their "liberal" badge.

You want so badly to paint liberals in a bad light. Why, would you do that on a liberal message board?

Number23

(24,544 posts)
330. KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT. SHOUT it if you need to
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:41 PM
Jul 2014

IT DOES NOT CHANGE REALITY. No matter how desperately you obviously need it to.

Every black leader this country has known has said this same thing about white liberals. MLK, Malcolm you name it. Do you think I'd take your word over theirs, and particularly when I know the truth for myself?

You keep hollering, screaming if you need to do that white liberals cannot and have never been racist. As I've said a hundred times now - THE REST OF US KNOW BETTER.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
331. "The Rest of Us Know Better". Really. You need to hate so badly you dont care who
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:45 PM
Jul 2014

you include. You dont know better. You would alienate those that would be your friends. How sad.

Liberals arent racists and those that disparage liberals must be conservatives. Now we all know that conservatives are most often racists.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
332. You are so invested in your fantasy you are calling the truth "hate"
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:55 PM
Jul 2014

And it's funny and pathetic as hell as the same time.

Because you are invested in falsehoods and ignorant of history, you expect the rest of us to be too?? Not gonna happen. Sorry that the truth pains you so much. Actually, I'm not sorry one bit. You need to educate yourself and stop wasting time throwing on the Coat of Victimhood and pretending that acknowledging that white liberals -- like ALL people -- are as susceptible to racism as everyone else is such an agonizing, painful thing to acknowledge. You might think liberals are superhuman but no one else does.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
270. Yeah, after posting I realized you are probably right.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 04:11 AM
Jul 2014

There's a lot of people on here who I agree with on most policy that say some pretty sexist things. Then there are some who are championing women's rights but defend centrist policy, even right wing policy, and I mean a lot of it. So I think there's a lot of people on here who are very liberal on certain things but not on others. I find it weird myself.

It would be interesting to see a pie chart of it all, see how the percentages are for each area. But it would have to be based on the content of their posts and not how they self-identify.

Because there's a good amount of people on here who think they are liberals but defend policy and stances that are centrist at best. It's surprising really. And it's not just about bigotry/social issues that you mentioned, which I have seen too much of, it's also about a lot of government actions.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
341. And every single one of them seems to claim that they spend all their
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 09:04 AM
Jul 2014

free time as abortion clinic escorts. If you believe what you read on DU, it's all the most sexist and nasty guys escorting women at abortion clinics. I find myself doubting that claim often here.

If this thread weren't petering out, I would expect to get a response to this post from one of them that goes along the lines of, "Well I used to do that, but because you are so mean about it, I won't any more!"

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
342. Yep ...
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 09:30 AM
Jul 2014
I would expect to get a response to this post from one of them that goes along the lines of, "Well I used to do that, but because you are so mean about it, I won't any more!"


 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
138. It amazes me that you use this opportunity to trash liberals. "And the liberals on DU" Apparently
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:28 PM
Jul 2014

you are including all the liberals on DU. I dont understand this on a liberal message board. If you are not a liberal, what are you?

By the way the liberals on the SCOTUS stood up for women's rights while the Conservatives didnt.

There are a lot of conservative here that claim to be liberals. They are easy to recognize because they support the TPP, XL Pipeline, and fracking.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
144. First, I am speaking of a particular sub-set of DU ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:05 PM
Jul 2014

that's what "Each and every person that has written the above statements ..." means. And that's what, "Hey, SOME men ..." means in the OP.

Secondly, what particularly is "liberal" about the statements that this thread has referred to?

By the way the liberals on the SCOTUS stood up for women's rights while the Conservatives didnt.


And the liberals on the SCOTUS haven't made any of the statements that this thread has highlighted; however, the Conservatives on the SCOTUS, and liberals on this site have ... so what are you saying?

There are a lot of conservative here that claim to be liberals. They are easy to recognize because they support the TPP, XL Pipeline, and fracking.


On this, we largely agree; but, I would extend the conservative identifier to include those that support the racial/gender status quo, and/or support the roll-back of a woman's right to control her own body, in general, and those that don't give a sh!t about/attempt to shut down discussions of racial/gender interests. That was largely the point of my post.

Finally, "Chuck a rock ... the dog that yelps, be the dog done got hit."
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
146. " First, I am speaking of a particular sub-set of DU" No you werent. You were very clear.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:17 PM
Jul 2014

Here are your words, "It amazes me ...How the pattern always plays out here on DU, a woman/PoC/GLBTQ member reacts to an outrageous act ... and the liberals on DU feel the need to tell us/them that we really shouldn't be upset..." That is addressed to "the liberals on DU". And if you are "chucking rocks" at liberals, I am yelping.

You also say, "... I would extend the conservative identifier to include those that support the racial/gender status quo, and/or support the roll-back of a woman's right to control her own body, in general, and those that don't give a sh!t about/attempt to shut down discussions of racial/gender interests. " and I would completely agree. Trying to paint me with that brush is very odd. Why would you do that? Dont we need to stick together on this issue?

On Edit: If you arent liberal, what are you?

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
148. B.S. ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:56 PM
Jul 2014

as you have pointed out by quoting my words ... I am/was ONLY talking about those "liberals on DU feel the need to tell us/them that we really shouldn't be upset...", when "a woman/PoC/GLBTQ member reacts to an outrageous act ..."

So tell me, Mr./Ms "not all men/liberals", how am talking about all liberals on this site?


You also say, "... I would extend the conservative identifier to include those that support the racial/gender status quo, and/or support the roll-back of a woman's right to control her own body, in general, and those that don't give a sh!t about/attempt to shut down discussions of racial/gender interests. " and I would completely agree. Trying to paint me with that brush is very odd. Why would you do that? Dont we need to stick together on this issue?


Damn ... why do some liberals (I said SOME {ETA: but in this case I am referring specifically to you}) liberals work so hard at placing themselves in a class to be offended?

noiretextatique

(27,275 posts)
156. because they are not liberals
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:49 PM
Jul 2014

Really. Any troll can come here and claim to be liberal, then spou every racist, sexist meme in the book...that means they are not liberals. Some seem vested in pretending real liberals are actually conservatives, but that makes no sense. So logic tells me that a person who claims to be a liberal has consistently liberal views, whereas a person who does not is not.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
160. But as you have pointed out ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:11 PM
Jul 2014

there are some/many here that are liberal economically; but not socially. And there are some/many here that seem to claim the economic stuff, as the touchstone of liberal interests ... I disagree. I value social equality/equity over the economic stuff, every time.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
242. If you think I am offended you give yourself too much credit.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:02 PM
Jul 2014

You tried to disparage liberals. Now you say you only meant "some liberals" and I still say BS. No liberals act as you accused. And if you are not a liberal what are you? I dont know, help me out.

"Chuck a rock ... the dog that yelps, be the dog done got hit." Again, if you are chucking rocks at liberals, they will yelp.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
252. I rarely say this; but ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:34 PM
Jul 2014

STFU ...

Trying to paint ME with that brush is very odd. Why would you do that?


If you think I'm talking about you, when I have clearly described the subset of posters that I am talking about ... then, you are full of "working hard to be the victim" sh!t.

Wait ... let me ask ... You do understand the English language, right?

If English is your 4th language, I'll go line by line for you.

You tried to disparage liberals.


No ... I was disparaging those people that post on this site how liberal they are AND tell PoC and woman when, and how, they should reaction to an outrageous act.

Now you say you only meant "some liberals" and I still say BS.


No ... that is what I have been saying from the start; but maybe conditional/sentences with qualifiers confuse you.

No liberals act as you accused.


Yes, they do ... hence the OP. Or, at least they claim to be liberals AND other liberals break in to co-sign their liberalness.

And if you are not a liberal what are you?


Oh ... I am a Democrat that subscribes to liberal principles; and that does not include defending folks that say un-liberal stuff, despite them and others calling them liberals.

Again, if you are chucking rocks at liberals, they will yelp.


Again ... why do you insist on lumping yourself in with a/the subset of posters that call themselves (with other defending them as) liberals, while posting racist/sexist crap?
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
255. People that are bigots, sexists, misogynists are not liberal by definition.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:45 PM
Jul 2014

If you wish to disparage bigots, sexists, and misogynists, go for it and I will support you. But there are far too many in DU that try to disparage liberals in general.

As far as telling me to Shut The Fuck Up, I've heard that before. I think it was Rahmbo Emanuel. He doesnt like liberals either.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
260. And/But ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:08 PM
Jul 2014
If you wish to disparage bigots, sexists, and misogynists, go for it and I will support you. But there are far too many in DU that try to disparage liberals in general.


I'm not one of them.

As far as telling me to Shut The Fuck Up, I've heard that before. I think it was Rahmbo Emanuel. He doesnt like liberals either.


What does that have to do with anything ... other than, a low thinly veiled slap at the President Obama administration of about 5 or 6 years ago?
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
261. I apologize if I overreacted. I am sensitive about supposed "politically liberals" attacking
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:09 PM
Jul 2014

liberals. It happens way too much here. I see it as an attempt to drive a wedge between the liberals and whatever they call themselves (often called DLC, The Third Way, etc.)

I hope we can work together to see that progressive Democrats prevail in 2014 and 2016.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
263. I am working to see Democrats ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:20 PM
Jul 2014

on every ballot ... I prefer progressives, that care about more than just combatting the 1%, and economic issues; but those that will, also, work to address the unacceptable racial/gender/GLBTQ status quo.

And then after the primaries, I will work to get ever Democrat on the ballot elected, whether DLC, 3rd-way, or however ones wishes to categorize them ... because the guy/gal with the "D" after is/will be far better than anyone with an "R" after their name.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
265. I will work extra hard for progressives, but sorry, I have seen too many Blue Dogs stab
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:44 AM
Jul 2014

us in the back. I understand your reasoning for supporting them but I cant do it. I think we are where we are because the damn Blue Dogs support the Republicans every chance they get. Look who supported Bush?

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
278. In truth ...
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 08:25 AM
Jul 2014

it's not just the "Blue Dogs." Even the Bluest of Blue-dogs vote with the Democratic Caucus on 70+% of the votes. The seminal, distinctive vote that demonstrates(ed) support for Bush found was the Iraq War Resolution. It found only 156, voting "No" ... and that included some republicans.

I can understand holding one's nose and voting for a Blue dog; but I cannot see not voting for a Blue dog ... it's simply a matter of math and recognized self-interest (e.g., 70 > 1).

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
280. I will agree with you on paper. But if a Democrat supported Dick Cheney's war crimes,
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 09:04 AM
Jul 2014

or is a known homophobe or racist, for example, I can not vote for them. If the system has gotten so bad that that's our only choice, then we need to do something drastic. Following the lesser of evils method has slowly ratcheted the lower classes to a point of almost total subjugation. Each time it's only a little worse than before until it's too late to fight back. We've been following this method for 30 years and it looks grim to me.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
285. I agree ...
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:47 AM
Jul 2014

the "lesser of two evils" is frustrating; but what is more frustrating for me is the refusal to acknowledge that there are regions/districts where the "better candidate", cannot win/has not won ... it is there, and IMO, there alone, where the hated Blue-dogs have value.

But the call for "something drastic", is a lot like all of paul ryan's plans ... it relies on some magical event that is unlikely to occur. And relying on/planning based on that magical event is not living in reality.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
287. The term "reality" gets bandied about. I see the current "reality" as not having
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:03 AM
Jul 2014

a path out of this mess. IMO we are getting farther behind every day. Granted we are gaining some much needed social changes, but if we continue on the path of losing our freedoms and liberties via the NSA/CIA and losing our economic liberties via Wall Street, we will get to a point were we can smoke marijuana in the soup lines. Following the status quo wont fix us. We will need something drastic and I am not speaking of violence.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
231. For the life of me ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:48 PM
Jul 2014

I can't understand how/why someone would work so hard to put themselves in the/a class being criticized. I've always thought, "If the shoe don't fit, why try and force it on?"

But then again, maybe those whining "notallmen/liberal" see themselves in the criticism?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
239. Yes I totally agree. If you are chucking rocks at liberals then liberals will yelp. But why
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:56 PM
Jul 2014

are you chucking rocks at liberals.

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
244. He's chucking rocks only at the people who behave a certain way.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:08 PM
Jul 2014

I'm a liberal, and I know he wasn't referring to me - as I don't engage in the behavior he described.

Likewise, if you don't engage in that behavior, then he wasn't referring to you, either.

Response to cyberswede (Reply #244)

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
250. Seriously?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:33 PM
Jul 2014

If you can see me reading threads on DU, then you'll see me in threads on those topics. If you think that only people who post prolifically in those threads qualify as liberal, then you're wrong.

I think you misunderstood 1strongblackman's post, and you're digging in your heels trying to remain insulted, for some reason.

Response to cyberswede (Reply #250)

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
257. I think we'll have to agree to disagree...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:55 PM
Jul 2014

I honestly don't think he intended to disparage liberals.

And I'm glad the liberals on the court supported women's rights.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
286. I will admit that I may have overreacted. I have a large chip on my shoulder.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:57 AM
Jul 2014

Thanks for the decent discussion. I will delete my above accusation.

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
288. No biggie...
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:23 AM
Jul 2014

I know some people do like to kick liberals around - blaming us for being too lefty, or radical, or whatever, and driving centrist voters away.

In reality, though my views are pretty far left (democratic socialist), once upon a time, they were considered typical Democratic views. *sigh*

Keep on keepin' on.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
301. Just like many meet complaints about ...
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 02:53 PM
Jul 2014

Rape or racism with: "Not all men rape" and "Not all white people are racist."

The problem is, while true, it distracts from the men that DO rape and the white people, including liberals, that DO do racist stuff.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
300. Thank you ...
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 02:43 PM
Jul 2014

Again, for the life of me, I can't understand how/why someone would work so hard to put themselves in the/a class being criticized. I've always thought, "If the shoe don't fit, why try and force it on?"

But then again, maybe those whining "notallmen/liberal" see themselves in the criticism?

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
333. liberal is a label
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 12:40 AM
Jul 2014

The meaning of which is contested, no more so than here on DU. There are people who consider themselves true liberals who are openly hostile to women and people of color. They seem to think political purity is measured by how much one hates Democrats, all while naively buying into national mythology and showing no conception of the role of the state under capitalism. People have contorted the word so that anything they believe is liberal and what others do is RW or centrist. You are one who loves to hurl labels as insults without embarking on any analysis of what that means.

This all reminds me why I never used the term liberal to describe myself and prefer leftist. Classical Liberalism emerged as the political corollary to capitalism and still retains some of that meaning, which is why it is not associated with the left in much of the world.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
334. My point is that those that are racist, homophobic, sexist, are not by definition liberal.
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 12:45 AM
Jul 2014

If people want to disparage the sexist, homophobic and racists among us, go for it. I will support you all the way. But some here see an opportunity to disparage the liberals. It's clearly disruptive.

 

Arugula Latte

(50,566 posts)
296. And then we get bizarre posts and even OPs telling us that no one should judge anyone's beliefs!
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:29 PM
Jul 2014

In such controversial matters, no one is right and no one is wrong, because, golly, people just think differently and that's okay! ...

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
302. I know, huh? ...
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 03:00 PM
Jul 2014

But when I saw that post, I thought that was more about a general world view, which we all have and will passionately defend.

Oh yeah ... that penguin GIF always makes me laugh. I find myself watching it wayyy longer than I should.

nolabear

(41,915 posts)
64. By golly I believe we have reached the "fuck ALL y'all" threshold!
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:05 AM
Jul 2014

I have seen less "nice" tolerance for the shit we've had to put up with since time began in the last couple of days than I ever have before. We might just be at the beginning of a movement.

BIG love to the men and women who take men and women seriously, and fuck ALL y'all who dare to dismiss and diminish us.

Response to boston bean (Original post)

 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
79. Thank you.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:54 AM
Jul 2014

For saying what needed to be said. I'm impressed you managed to put it "kindly". I don't trust myself to respond to some of the bullshit I've seen here this week.



ismnotwasm

(41,921 posts)
90. That's the only kind of fucking they deserve
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:11 AM
Jul 2014

Too bad we can't have a supreme court decision about that...

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
98. I'm going to add one: If you think the damage from this ruling lies only in the "slippery slope,"
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:38 AM
Jul 2014

that the problem with this ruling is that it might eventually affect you badly, and that the part about the birth control is not that bad per se, kindly go fuck yourself.

And understand that, if you hold any of these beliefs or needs, even if you don't believe you are a sexist, you are a sexist.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
99. Well said and I am greatly familiar with that attitude, often out of the same people, toward LGBT
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:52 AM
Jul 2014

issues. It is a conservative and often hyper religious lot that can not bear even the thought of women and LGBT people being equal.
And they should go fuck themselves. They should not even be on DU.

 

ann---

(1,933 posts)
101. And these "some" men forget
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:59 AM
Jul 2014

that MANY women use birth control pills as therapy for some female problems that have NOTHING to do with preventing births. These rightwingnut fanatics who think contraception is a sin need to grow up and get a life and stop interfering in women's health issues.

IronLionZion

(45,261 posts)
104. This whole issue is the fault of conservative judges appointed by Republicans
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:25 AM
Jul 2014

and of course the conservative corporations who wish to punish their female employees (and female family members) by denying them important health benefits based on misguided philosophical ideas that are scientifically incorrect, mainly out of spite. Those folks need to go fuck themselves hard.

I share your rage.



Hepburn

(21,054 posts)
106. Hey, any male out there who is OK with the HL decision:
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:33 AM
Jul 2014

When you get ordered to pay child support for a child you were not planning on...double that "Kindly go fuck yourself." Maybe you should have had that vasectomy that IS covered.

'Nuff said.

UtahLib

(3,179 posts)
119. Right on BB! Could not be more obvious.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:40 AM
Jul 2014

Different day, same old shit oozing from the same self absorbed shitheads.

Javaman

(62,442 posts)
122. Do you know the proper use of quotation marks?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:50 AM
Jul 2014

Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

by using them in your sentence, you make it appears as if you are referring to all men.

But you "knew" that right? LOL

http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
159. I just think that unnecessary quotes website is hysterically "funny".
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:11 PM
Jul 2014

I don't read any malicious "intent" into the use of quotation marks in the OP, however, I do think most "people" would agree it is a "misuse" of the "punctuation".

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
187. FFS Warren.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:13 PM
Jul 2014

I put it in quotations to emphasize that I did what people demanded that I do on this website. Let everyone know that it is only "some" men.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
199. It doesn't need quotes, that's the point.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:26 PM
Jul 2014

And you should look at that website, it's funny.

Plus, in case you didn't notice, I'm agreeing with your point in this thread. If you want to have an argument with me, you'd probably get more traction if you wait until I'm actually disagreeing with you.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
202. I don't want to have an argument with you.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:28 PM
Jul 2014

I want to set you straight. When someone demands I say something a certain way, I will use quotations to show I have used their verbiage.

If you don't like it, or it's not grammatically correct, I could care less.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
205. It does not actually rise to the level of me not liking it.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:31 PM
Jul 2014

I hope you get everything you wanted out of this "thread".

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
207. "what is so horribly wrong and sexist about this OP."
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:33 PM
Jul 2014





Guess you won't be sending any alerts for a while





 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
256. Improper use of punctuation can drastically alter meaning.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:46 PM
Jul 2014

eg. adding a comma where it doesn't belong


or leaving commas out





same with periods



and it works with quotation marks, too, as has already been discussed up-thread.

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
259. Well, you can't use bold or italics for emphasis thread titles...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:01 PM
Jul 2014

I usually use asterisks when I want to highlight text in a thread title, but bb obviously chose another method.

If she had posted Hey men of DU, she would have been excoriated for not saying some men...when the context of the thread makes it clear she is only referring to the people who actually fit the criteria she is criticizing.

Your graphics are funny.

stage left

(2,934 posts)
216. Those of us who have seen the outrageous
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:42 PM
Jul 2014

Threads from certain outrageous posters in the last couple of days, know exactly what and who Boston Bean meant. I've been lurking here a good while and I'm fairly familiar with the usual suspects, but you're new to me."LOL"

Javaman

(62,442 posts)
277. Well allow me to introduce myself...
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 08:22 AM
Jul 2014

I'm Javaman, I've been here for 10 years.

and since I'm new to you, you seem easy to launch accusations.

huh, how about that.

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)
123. and yet,
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:13 AM
Jul 2014

what have you done beyond posting on a discussion board?

Have you even emailed HL to tell them of your displeasure with their policy?

Yawn.................

Sheldon Cooper

(3,724 posts)
134. Heh.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:38 AM
Jul 2014

Hobby Lobby cared enough about this issue to take it all the way to the US Supreme Court, but an email from BB will almost certainly get them to change their mind.

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
126. This is a discussion board, not an echo chamber or protected group.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:21 AM
Jul 2014

That said, while the Hobby Lobby case probably doesn't augur the coming of the end times, it was a bad decision. That OP that said it was up to women to do something about it was pretty stupid and displayed a real lack of solidarity. An injury to one is an injury to all.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
132. WTF? I think you are saying you agree. So why the cracks about echo chambers, protected groups
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:34 AM
Jul 2014

and end times?

derby378

(30,252 posts)
130. Well, since you're obviously not referring to me...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:31 AM
Jul 2014

...I'll stand outside this Hobby Lobby and privately fume that nobody will join my protest.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
140. How about we give them a hashtag that they can embrace:
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:35 PM
Jul 2014

Like, say, #NotAllSupremeCourts?

Seriously, thanks for your post. Too bad I can only rec it once.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
143. always amazed when men WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:02 PM
Jul 2014

patronize women (and often minorities and GLBT Americans) and dismiss their civil rights as "distractions" and "gonadal politics" and "lifestyle liberalism"

do they understand how oafish they sound?

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
354. *sigh*
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:47 AM
Jul 2014

This really gets so tiresome. It's exhausting, really. Thanks for pointing it out, Geek Tragedy.

Efilroft Sul

(3,573 posts)
161. Real men stand with women.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:19 PM
Jul 2014

Really, there are guys on DU expressing that shite? You were too kind to them, boston bean!

JohnnyRingo

(18,581 posts)
164. You think this court decision was about gender?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:44 PM
Jul 2014

I'm not sure, but it appears you believe this court decision to be an attack on women, and are taking it personally. I don't have a dog in this particular gender fight you seem to be waging in DU, and I don't know to whom you refer when you name "certain men", but I believe you're somewhat shortsighted.

I'm certain the right wing corporatists on the Supreme could not care less about your reproductive decisions, or the bible for that matter, and more about yet handing another deregulation victory to a major corporation. Even Elaine Kagen, in her minority dissent, made no mention of women's issues, but instead focused on how corporations can interpret this to cheat workers of both sexes out of benefits in the near future.

Your arrogance in finding this decision to be all about you is like my complaining that the Supreme's fateful decision to merge Sirius and XM was all about Robert's disdain for Deadheads like me who enjoy the network's Grateful Dead channel.

You'd find more support if you organized against Hobby Lobby instead of alienating 50% f the population in an imaginary battle against liberal misogyny. I'm personally not going to set foot again in the retail giant's store, but such a shunning is easy in such a competitive market. I'm doing this because of the company's obvious disregard for labor, not just for the couple hundred total female workers that it may affect in the short term.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
179. Oh, FFS. I nominate you as the poster child for the "You're alienating your allies and it's all
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:58 PM
Jul 2014

about me" party.

And did you think it WASN'T about women?

You need to read the OP more slowly next time.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
180. To answer you
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:00 PM
Jul 2014

1)

it appears you believe this court decision to be an attack on women

I believe the decision was about biological sex of those who use these medications and procedures and devices.

2)
and are taking it personally

I am a woman, I do take it somewhat personally.

3)
you seem to be waging in DU

I am not waging a gender war on DU. Although I could argue, successfully, that you are.

4)
to whom you refer when you name "certain men


I never named "certain men". I used the word "some".

5)
I'm certain the right wing corporatists on the Supreme could not care less about your reproductive decisions


The Supreme Court actually does care about womens reproductive decisions. And I am a woman.

6)
minority dissent, made no mention of women's issues


Since this effects women medical decisions only, I presume it is a given that it effects one SEX, the female sex.

7)
Your arrogance in finding this decision to be all about you

Again, I don't find this to be all about me only.

8)
instead of alienating 50% f the population in an imaginary battle against liberal misogyny


I sincerely doubt I have alienated anyone who agrees that this decision sucks for women.

9)
but such a shunning is easy in such a competitive market


I also won't visit a hobby lobby.

10)
I'm doing this because of the company's obvious disregard for labor, not just for the couple hundred total female workers that it may affect in the short term.

This decision effects more than just women who work for Hobby Lobby, educate yourself please. You are looking foolish.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
195. Yeah, attacks on contraception and abortion have NOTHING to do with gender.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:20 PM
Jul 2014

Good grief, the cluelessness is truly astounding.

JohnnyRingo

(18,581 posts)
224. This ruling is about exemption for religious reasons
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:03 PM
Jul 2014

The fact that it was found in a case concerning contraception is purely incidental, it'll be applied in a wide range of policies.

I'm not clueless, and I'm not trying to divide DU by gender lines. Truly astounding.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
226. That you claim that this ruling's nexus
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:11 PM
Jul 2014

Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)

with women's reproductive choice is "purely incidental" indicates you may be clueless.

JohnnyRingo

(18,581 posts)
266. Then you must assume the majority of the Supreme Court...
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 02:52 AM
Jul 2014

...shares a religious concern with women's contraception. I don't believe that, I think they handed a broad brush exemption to big business that allows them to avoid government regulation. That's been a hallmark of the Roberts court.

After some thought, I've come to believe that the "certain men" that the OP concerns herself with may also believe that this court decision only targets women, and make comments that demean the ruling as relatively harmless (to them). I obviously don't agree with that opinion, regardless your view that I'm "clueless".

I guess you just believe the Supreme Court hates women. Unlike the deeper legal ramifications of this decision, that fits nicely on a bumper sticker.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
267. Speaking of clueless:
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 02:59 AM
Jul 2014
a religious concern with women's contraception.


There are 5 rightwing Catholic men on the court. Care to guess (a) the Catholic church's stance on contraception and the contraception mandate and (b) how those 5 rightwing Catholic men voted in Hobby Lobby?

Just because you have not been paying attention to the Republican coalitions' attacks on women's reproductive choice does not mean it isn't real.

I'm sure the women here appreciate you mansplaining Republican jurisprudence on contraception and abortion to them.

JohnnyRingo

(18,581 posts)
305. There are Catholics that dissented as well
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 03:19 PM
Jul 2014

If the Roberts court made a conservative decision based on their religious beliefs, then that'd a first. This court has consistently made rulings that offer corporate relief from various government regulation, and this is no exception.

Several years ago Roberts even frustrated the religious right by stating that he had "no interest" in revisiting Roe/Wade, but you seem to believe that he and other cons have deep held convictions when it comes to birth control pills, presumably because they hate women. That this ruling provides a loophole for huge corporations to save money by denying workers expensive health care is not a coincidence.

This decision is a bow tied gift to companies that want to ignore the expense of Obamacare, not a frontal assault against women. This is backed up by every legitimate pundit who offers a comment. DU seems to be the only place I can find where it's being interpreted as only a women's rights issue. Today we read that corporations predictably are now inquiring if they can use the Roberts decision to discriminate against the LGBT community in general.

Denigrating gender comments and assumptions that I'm too ignorant to be aware of the political environment does not strengthen your argument, but you go ahead if it makes you feel better. I've stated my case and refuse to reiterate for the sole sake of argument.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
328. Today's Wheaton ruling appears to further undercut
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:40 PM
Jul 2014

your nonsense claim that the wingnut justices have zero interest in diminishing women's reproductive choice .

The one where they ruled that a nonprofit was horribly oppressed by being required to fill out a form telling an insurance company that the nonprofit didn't want to to pay for birth control.

After saying 3 days earlier that such a form was a reasonable accommodation.

Your position can only be characterized as willful blindness. Why you choose to adopt such an absurd position is a mystery.

progree

(10,864 posts)
329. I hadn't heard. Here's the story for anyone else who missed it (another F.U. from the Sup. Court to
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:20 PM
Jul 2014

women. And to the men that the women take the contraceptives for. And an F.U. to REAL religious freedom -- the right to not have one's boss dictate his/her religious views).

Supreme Court sides with Christian college in birth control case, Washington Post, 7/3/14

The three female justices of the Supreme Court sharply rebuked their colleagues Thursday for siding with a Christian college in the latest battle over providing women with contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act, saying the court was retreating from assurances offered only days ago.

In a short, unsigned opinion, the court said that Wheaton College in Illinois, at least temporarily, does not have to comply even with compromise provisions in the law that the college says still violate its religious beliefs.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the action cast doubt on the very accommodation the court’s majority seemed to endorse Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which concerned businesses that objected to providing birth control that offends the owners’ beliefs.

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” wrote Sotomayor, who was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. “Not so today.”

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/2014/07/03/622f7b12-02f8-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html


There's a lot more at the "More", including disagreement on the impact of this.

Yes, Stephen Breyer -- the only male who joined the 3 females in dissent in the Hobby Lobby case -- did not join their dissent in this ruling, no reason given. In case anyone was wondering.
 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
358. Well, one. Sotomayoro.
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:57 AM
Jul 2014

A Woman. That's it. She is the only Catholic that dissented. The remaining dissenters were Jewish.

Gormy Cuss

(30,884 posts)
210. How about it's both about gender and broader issues?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:36 PM
Jul 2014

How about the IMMEDIATE impact is that HL and dozens of other companies will use this ruling to deny contraceptive coverage to women in spite of the ACA mandate, and the longer term implication is that companies can use this ruling to skate out from under all sorts of worker protections? Calling that 'deregulation' sounds good on a right wing board but here I'd call it erosion of freedom of religion.

Ripple through still waters, ya know.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
219. Rule of thumb, If you're not sure who "certain men" are, it's YOU.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:50 PM
Jul 2014

My observation on such issues is if you're not leading the charge or part of the cheering section, you're part of the problem.

JohnnyRingo

(18,581 posts)
225. I don't think you know me
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:05 PM
Jul 2014

If you did you wouldn't have made such a baseless charge.

Feel free to search my posts for evidence

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
229. I'm not commenting on you at all.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:39 PM
Jul 2014

I'm commenting on who "certain men" and based on my observations about who are considered "certain men" by the people who refer to others as "certain men".

As for a baseless charge, I didn't charge you with anything.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
292. you just said "you don't have a dog in this particular gender fight", why do you think that is?
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:10 PM
Jul 2014

because it doesn't effect your gender.

clueless.

JohnnyRingo

(18,581 posts)
307. Welcome to the pile on.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 03:34 PM
Jul 2014

I, and most pundits that have offered an opinion, believe this decision has wide ranging consequences that bound past gender lines. Even Justice Sotomier, in her dissent, outlined how it can be applied universally in the near future. Just today, it was reported that some companies are inquiring if their religious views can now be used to avoid upcoming regulations on hiring from the LGBT community.

This decision is a broad brush gift to corporations that want to avoid government requirements that provide expensive health care to employees, not just an assault against women. Insisting that the Roberts court is out to get you for being born a woman seems a bit self centered. Frankly, your vagina takes a distant back seat to corporate financial interests when it comes to this Supreme Court.

If calling me names strengthens your baseless argument that the court just hates women, then knock yourself out. I refuse to reiterate for the sake of giving you opportunity to employ clever emojis.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
170. If you are here on this site, you should be fighting and arguing for equality.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:34 PM
Jul 2014

Totally agree with you.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
177. Sadly, I was arguing with a woman about this last night...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:53 PM
Jul 2014

Her talking points were damn near IDENTICAL to what the guys you are calling out were saying.
She found it to be of no concern. Even mentioned keeping legs crossed. When I called her out, she
told me not to argue with her about her uterus. I replied with "but it's ok for 5 men to make decisions concerning such?"

I was completely flabbergasted that I was having that conversation. I thought to myself, "if only HoF could see this..."

What's really fucked up is she's not a conservative or Christian. She's mostly apolitical (and seems to side with dems on MOST issues when she does chime in with opinion). And she works in the medical profession.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
183. Many dont see it as restricting birth control, just that someone else isn't paying for it
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:06 PM
Jul 2014

And there is truth to that. This decision doesn't stop a woman from going to the pharmacy and buying birth control pills.

The idea that birth control should be free is mainly a liberal idea, and that's the problem a lot of people have with this debate.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
186. No, the issue at the court was about health insurance.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:08 PM
Jul 2014

Health insurance that is partly paid by the employee, and partly paid by the employer. There was NO FREE birth control.

The justices mentioned that the gov't could provide free birth control to women to get around their decision.

You got a problem with the Supreme Court recommending that?

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
194. The deicsion proves how bad ACA really is...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:20 PM
Jul 2014

Should have been a single payer to begin with.

Most modern western democracies dont have this issue that we are having right now because they have single payer systems and not employer-provided health insurance that allows corporations to have any say at all.

That's the 800 pound gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about because they are scared of criticizing Obamacare. I knew when this law passed in 2009 it was a bad law. This decision is just the tip of the iceberg of what's coming.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
197. blah blah blah blame Obamacare, blame women for getting upset
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:23 PM
Jul 2014

whatever you can do to deflect from the rampant sexism being enabled by the judiciary

"should have been single payer to begin with"

this is what is traditionally known as a 'fantasy'

there were not the votes for single payer. So says Bernie Sanders. now, if you want to argue that thousands of people should be allowed to die rather than having the ACA get enacted, own that argument instead of hiding behind silly arguments

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
200. I'm sorry but single payer brings this issue to the forefront even more so.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:26 PM
Jul 2014

Public funds to be used for abortion and now with this Supreme ruling, contraception.

It would still be a total cluster. It is about one thing and one thing only. Controlling uteruses.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
203. single payer would only remove this particular excuse.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:28 PM
Jul 2014

since they couldn't hide behind religous liberty on that one.

at its base it's exactly what Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
198. Of course it's being discussed. There are many issues.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:24 PM
Jul 2014

Including putting restrictions on womens health choices due to religious beliefs.

You want to start a thread about it, please do. That doesn't mean that there aren't other issues that reverberate just as strongly.

For all bills concerning womens health the Hyde amendement is attached, preventing any public funds to be used for abortion. You think that with a public plan this decision from the court would have been different?

The issue lies with religious fucks wanting to control women. They don't want to control men. They want to control uteruses. That makes it about women, ok?

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
223. With a public option, there wouldnt even be a case
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:57 PM
Jul 2014

Congress has the constitutional power to tax...even Justice Roberts says this is true.

If the Congress wants to have a tax, and then use that money for healthcare (even to pay for abortions or contraception), there isn't anything unconstitutional about that. The problem with that though is getting it past the Republicans in Congress (and perhaps even some Democrats).

thucythucy

(7,986 posts)
189. Birth control, as part of the coverage offered by employee insurance, isn't "free."
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:16 PM
Jul 2014

It's a part of one's salary, another form of compensation, a "benefit" like paid vacation or sick time or retirement. Workers PAY for those benefits by accepting lower wages. In other words, workers work for their health insurance.

The idea that health insurance, or any part thereof, is provided for "free" by benevolent for-profit corporations is another right wing shibboleth.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
191. Actually, it IS restricting...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:16 PM
Jul 2014

In the sense that many other services are covered. Vasectomies and viagra, amongst them. But BC is not. And BC isn't always for BC. Sometimes it's a hormone regulator. This was the wrong ruling. It weakens the ACA as a whole, and opens up a whole slew of "possibilities" for "religious businesses".

Now, women working for those companies have to pay out of pocket for something that was previously covered, because religion.

Also, religion should not get to redefine science. None of those were abortificants, but because they "believe" they are, then we can rule they are? Fuck that.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
193. no, there isn't truth to that, contra to what Limbaugh says. it's about an employer being allowed
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:19 PM
Jul 2014

to meddle in the healthcare offered to women, but not men.

Repeat after me:

contraception is health care
contraception is health care
contraception is health care

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
218. LIES. Birth control is not free with insurance. Why don't you educate yourself just a little bit
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:48 PM
Jul 2014

before posting this nonsense.
Or just admit you are fine with Hobby Lobby deciding people's medical decisons- because that is what they are trying to accomplish. If it hurt your penis, I bet you'd squeal like a pig.

Amaya

(4,560 posts)
184. Men kindly stay the fuck away from female reproductive
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:07 PM
Jul 2014

issues! Do women discuss penis issues ?


Fuck off!

alp227

(31,962 posts)
227. Post kept 2-5.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:31 PM
Jul 2014
Mail Message
On Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:47 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Breathe deeply and count to 10...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5185791

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Rude, ad hom attack on boston bean (possibly misogynist too since bean often posts at the feminist boards)...possible disruptor too due to recent registration date. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=315364

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:26 PM, and voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Don't need direct nastiness from a newbie. n/t
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If it's a troll it will reveal itself soon enough. This post isn't offensive, however. If you alert on one that is, I'll vote to hide it, but I'm not going back through all 21 previous posts to determine if this is a troll or not. That's for the MIRT people, or whatever they're called.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not worthy of hide
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
236. Seriously?
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:58 PM
Jul 2014

It's straight-up, undisputable HARASSMENT based on bean standing up for women's issues.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
245. that's not an argument against hiding a certain post.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:09 PM
Jul 2014

"Other things are worse than X" is never an argument against "X".

 

Brisk

(37 posts)
264. Hardly...
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:21 AM
Jul 2014

... But an attitude like that is likely to push allies away and cost you instead of gaining support.

 

Brisk

(37 posts)
271. Are you suggesting...
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 04:31 AM
Jul 2014

... That the originator of the 'More flies with honey... ' saying was an MRA advocate whoever he or she was?

They certainly got out in front of that one...

Sometimes I think you guys just want to argue instead of actually winning advancement for an important cause.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
272. Any "ally" that is going to be pushed away for me pointing out
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:30 AM
Jul 2014

what is offensive was never an ally to begin with, imho.

MadrasT

(7,237 posts)
273. boston bean for the win
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:42 AM
Jul 2014

Anyone who is pushed away by "tone" is not an ally to begin with, and is also usually wielding their privilege as a weapon.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
282. Yeah, my goals align quite nicely with allies who believe in equal rights for women.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 09:29 AM
Jul 2014

Sorry to see you have taken such an offense to my offense of offending the offensive.

Now, go preach to someone else.

Response to boston bean (Reply #282)

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
313. Seriously, can't you guys come up with anything new? Ever? Because this shit is getting monotonous.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 04:45 PM
Jul 2014

Response to Squinch (Reply #313)

Response to Squinch (Reply #316)

Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #290)

Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #299)

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
317. I see you are a little slow so let me break it down
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 05:08 PM
Jul 2014

For you = disrespect a woman will get someone a big fuck you. Either get with the program or get gone out of the thread.

Phentex

(16,330 posts)
346. I think the socks are more rampant than trolls these days...
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 10:31 AM
Jul 2014

the posting styles are very similar and they are so obvious.

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
347. yes, and I think we have some Zombie Trolls who wear socks, too. =
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 10:36 AM
Jul 2014

and then we have some outright disruptors who manage to ride the ToS Line like it is a daily commute.

Phentex

(16,330 posts)
348. one day we shall dance...
Mon Jul 7, 2014, 10:40 AM
Jul 2014

I don't think I have ever participated in a grave dancing thread but there's a really smelly troll right now and I am going to enjoy a full blown "break-dancing-on-my-back" party when it's gone.

Gothmog

(144,005 posts)
220. I have been butting heads with idiots on Discussionist who making these arguments
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:54 PM
Jul 2014

I enjoy getting in the face of the idiots advancing these claims. I like to "discuss" and there are some idiots on Discussionist who need some education.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
237. There are a few here ...
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:00 PM
Jul 2014

that need some educating, as well.

But then, again, they may be the same people.

Gothmog

(144,005 posts)
276. I do not come to DU to debate but to get information and insights
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 08:19 AM
Jul 2014

I mostly stay out of any of the fights or debates on DU because I am not looking to debate anyone on this site. I agree with 90%+ of the posters here on most if not all issues. DU is an amazing source of information on a wide range of issues and the materials posted here are great. I love the information and insights that I get from this board.

I go to the Discussionist site because I like debating or discussing issues with conservatives. I like to mix it up with the conservatives on Discussionist website. I am mainly dealing with very conservative types over there and go after the people with the most offensive positions. Some of these people my be DUers or ex-DUers but I doubt it in that I tend to engage mostly with obvious conservative types whose posts are too stupid to be on DU.

I like to argue and debate issues and the Discussionist site is a good place for me to engage with real conservatives. I tend not to get involved in the "debates" or "fights" on DU because I can usually see both sides of the argument and I do not think that it is appropriate to debate with people that I agree with on over 90%+ of the issues. I have been on DU for over 10 years and had lurked for a couple of years before joining. I love the information and insights that I get from DU

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
325. If you agree with this decision, you should honestly be ran off from DU.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:46 PM
Jul 2014

This is the kind of thing that should be against everything we stand for.

locdlib

(176 posts)
238. I have been saying this for a long time.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:35 PM
Jul 2014

Some men don't seem to understand how this impacts them, too. My getting pregnant affects you, my having painful, incapacitating hemorrhaging affects you, having your employer dictate to you what type of birth control you and your girlfriend/wife select affects you. The way I see it, men need to stand up and get involved in this issue or they can quite literally go sit in a corner and fuck themselves.

Response to boston bean (Original post)

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
284. I'm a woman a human being, I'm not defined as a HoF'er.
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 09:33 AM
Jul 2014

But thanks for the K&R. I've never had an issue with you. I don't know why you felt the need to say what you did.



 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
324. I'm the first to criticize extreme feminist stuff concerning word policing and sexy magazine outrage
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:44 PM
Jul 2014

But this is one of those times where we have an actual issue of importance to women and if you support this flawed decision, you aren't a Democrat, you aren't a progressive, you aren't a liberal, you are a sexist asshole, period. This is a REAL battle that needs to be fault for sure. I'm fully on board with getting up in people's faces about this.

Squinch

(50,774 posts)
335. Think about that, though.
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 08:29 AM
Jul 2014

What, as a society, do we find normal and acceptable? What as "the left" do we display to others about our beliefs?

Our society as a whole is revealing its clear belief, day after day, that women ought not to have agency over their lives and bodies. This ruling upholds that belief.

And when a poster refers to women as "cumdumpsters" on a purportedly left leaning message board, and it is allowed to stand, and it is applauded, we are reinforcing and expanding that same position. Worse, we are saying that it is OK with us that women are treated like garbage. We are saying that the group that ought to be the most dependable in its defense of women's rights share the view that demeaning women is fun and OK.

Objecting to language like that is not "extreme feminist stuff." It is forwarding the same position that you are taking with your post.

Silent3

(15,020 posts)
355. I'm with you completely on Hobby Lobby and all the related ramifications...
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 12:49 AM
Jul 2014

...but I reserve the right to call "hair on fire" on other issues.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hey "some" men ...