# Rush calls for sex videos.



## granfire (Mar 2, 2012)

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...eption-advocate-should-post-online-sex-videos

Actually not worth of any more airtime, considering who we are talking about.


However in the wake, some people are defending the matter of conscious that is being violated here...
But then it struck me: 
The individual still has the ability to pick and choose according to personal believes. Nobody does force contraceptives on a person.

However, a company/corporation is not a person, past the legal status. Consciousness most often is restricted to the bottom line.
So can a company, a corporation that is not a real person claim concion? (I know, I can't spell it)


so aside from the old windbag blowing superheated vapors, thus earning his keep, and the morality of contraceptives, even if they have a real medical use as well, Can a corporation, a business claim the high ethical standard?

I for one, considering the faceless - or multiheaded - entity an institution like church, or even a business represents think they can't claim it.

This is not meant to discuss BC or the like, we have beaten that dead horse way beyond reason already. Just whether or not you consider a big institution can claim the rights we do assume as individual.


----------



## Brian King (Mar 2, 2012)

Not sure what you are saying or asking? Can you rephrase the question/statement or can somebody translate?

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 2, 2012)

In regards to whether they can... Yes. And in many cases, institutions and companies have already been granted that right.

As to whether or not they should? No. I think it eroded personal liberty to allow a company to act as an individual.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2012)

Brian King said:


> Not sure what you are saying or asking? Can you rephrase the question/statement or can somebody translate?
> 
> Regards
> Brian King



Josh got it. 

The question is can a conglomerate of people (or non people) as a corporation or institution claim the same personal rights as an individual.

As in this case, can the institution demand that it's moral claim has the same value as the individual one. 

To me, while I can see the abstract concept of making such a large organism a legal person, I don't see how it can enjoy the same level of protection.

And sorry for the confusing roundabout way to express myself...running low on caffeine....


----------



## Brian King (Mar 2, 2012)

Do the individuals working with-in and for a corporation lose their individual rights?



> "As in this case, can the institution demand that it's moral claim has the same value as the individual one."



Which case?

Am running off to work and will be limited on computer time over the weekend. Pardon my posting and running and failure to keep up with the thread in both the beginning of it and in the immediate future.

Good luck and have a good weekend
Brian King


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 2, 2012)

A fellow I know on another forum has, as his .sig line, "I'll believe a coproration is a person when Texas executes one"... I think that's an appropriate summation of the issue.

As for Rush calling for sex videos...
We know the man enjoys his pills. Apparently he likes him some porn too.


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2012)

Brian King said:


> Do the individuals working with-in and for a corporation lose their individual rights?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



well, 'this case' being how on grounds of believes BC shall be kept exempt from healthcare plans because the church objects to it.
But this is more about the institution's rights to object to it, vs an individual right to conscientious objections.


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> A fellow I know on another forum has, as his .sig line, "I'll believe a coproration is a person when Texas executes one"... I think that's an appropriate summation of the issue.
> 
> As for Rush calling for sex videos...
> We know the man enjoys his pills. Apparently he likes him some porn too.



I love that tag line! :lol:


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 2, 2012)

**** Rush Limbaugh. Seriously.


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> **** Rush Limbaugh. Seriously.



what? Make his dreams come true?
Not on your life.


----------



## billc (Mar 2, 2012)

Hmmm...this woman wants the federal government to force private insurance companies and private businesses to pay for her birth control, and use the police powers of the government to make them cover birth control, and Rush is the problem...hmmm...


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> what? Make his dreams come true?
> Not on your life.



With an unprotected copy of the Constitution and its Amendments. Too bad we can't do it with the 19th amendment,


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 2, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...this woman wants the federal government to force private insurance companies and private businesses to pay for her birth control, and use the police powers of the government to make them cover birth control, and Rush is the problem...hmmm...



Billc, I would like to point out that the issue at hand is whether firms can and should be treated like individuals in regards to right or not.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Mar 2, 2012)

Since the first line of the thread was this...

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...ine-sex-videos


I was also responding to that...thanks though...

And considering "Rush calls for sex videos." is the name of the thread, once again, I'm not too far off the mark in my response, but thanks again anyway...


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 2, 2012)

Well people put human emotions and traits on Businesses when it suits their argument.  Greedy Oil, Criminal Haliburton, Theving Wallstreet, ect.  So why is it ok to give a business the negitave human traits but not the moral ones?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 2, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Since the first line of the thread was this...
> 
> http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...ine-sex-videos
> 
> ...



Read the first post. The whole thing. Gran specifically did NOT want to talk about that narrower issue (hence she said that horse has already been beaten to death), but instead to talk about the larger issue of whether firms should be treated like individuals in regards to rights (hence she said I got the point when I replied).

So you're welcome.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 2, 2012)

A corporation cannot and should not act as an individual and, therefor, should not have the rights of such. Their interests are not in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they are in profitability and competition.


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Well people put human emotions and traits on Businesses when it suits their argument.  Greedy Oil, Criminal Haliburton, Theving Wallstreet, ect.  So why is it ok to give a business the negitave human traits but not the moral ones?



ah, got me there. However, it' not about the traits, it's about the rights.


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Since the first line of the thread was this...
> 
> http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...ine-sex-videos
> 
> ...



I knew it would get you to open the thread.
:angel:


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> ah, got me there. However, it' not about the traits, it's about the rights.


I dont think its a question of the company having rights as much as does the Govt have the right to force a company to provide a serivce free of charge.


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I dont think its a question of the company having rights as much as does the Govt have the right to force a company to provide a serivce free of charge.



well, it's a health care service. If you allow one to be excluded on moral grounds, why not another? 
You know, like expensive viral treatments etc.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, it's a health care service. If you allow one to be excluded on moral grounds, why not another?
> You know, like expensive viral treatments etc.



Should the Govt have the right to even force health care to begin with?  I say no but That will be for the Supreme Court to decide.


----------



## billc (Mar 2, 2012)

I look at a lot of threads, even yours.  No reason to bait your thread.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 2, 2012)

Meanwhile, in other news, there's an Internet/email campaign to Rush's sponsors to get them to drop his program.

Just today, three of them have done so.

There is also a campaign directed towards radio stations that carry his program.]

Interesting.


----------



## billc (Mar 2, 2012)

Been there done that, they keep trying to get him off the air, it used to be the feminists and orange juice, we'll see how this goes as well.  Careful elder, this thread is about corporations and personhood, you may be warned about that by the thread police...


----------



## billc (Mar 2, 2012)

Rush reacts to the fake outrage over fluke...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks



> I want to go back and get this out of the way 'cause I'm sure that there is voluminous tune-in today to hear about this controversy that has arisen with my blunt talk about Sandra Fluke.  We've run some numbers on this.  According to Planned Parenthood -- and they should know -- birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month.  So, at most, that would be $600 a year.  What is Sandra Fluke buying?  We then -- I didn't do this, but a member of the staff well-versed in these matters went to Amazon to check the purchase of condoms.  And essentially what we found is that you could buy the equivalent of using five condoms a day for $953, and if you paid for it at once you could get free shipping.  And everybody's in a hurry here.  So free shipping would matter.  Nine hundred fifty-three dollars.  So Planned Parenthood, $600 bucks a year.  Condoms, $953 a year.
> Up on Capitol Hill at Pelosi's hearing, thousands of dollars a year.  But they want it free.  They want the contraception free.  I know condoms are free, if you know where to go get 'em.  I don't know where to go get 'em free but Snerdley assures me that they're free.  (interruption) There is an iPhone AP to find free condoms?  For New York City.  Well, cool, okay, there you go.  So we're not even talking $953 with free shipping.  Keep that in mind while we're listening to this thousands and thousands of dollars in taxpayer dollars to satisfy the sexual habits of female law students at Georgetown.
> 
> 
> ...





> How did we become so heartless? Require each other to pay for the contraceptives of the women law students at Georgetown? Sandra Fluke reported to Pelosi: "It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations. 'Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,' Fluke told the hearing. ... That&#8217;s a thousand dollars a year of sex -- and, she wants us to pay for it." Now, what does that make her? She wants us to buy her sex. She wants us to pay for her sex, and she went to a congressional committee to close the sale.
> It's the right place to do that. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
> Where do you think the insurance companies forced to cover this cost get the money to pay for these co-eds to have sex? It comes from health care insurance premiums that everybody else pays. There isn't anything free. "'For a lot of students, like me, who are on public interest scholarships, that&#8217;s practically an entire summer&#8217;s salary,' she complains." A thousand dollars, $3,000, practically an entire summer salary that they now have to spend on sex. So she earns enough money in just one summer to pay for three full years of sex, and they're full years because she and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.
> Well, that's what the numbers add up to! We've run 'em here: $953 for condoms on Amazon. That's a year. That's close to a thousand bucks. Why aren't condoms provided free by this stupid policy? Why only birth control pills? No, I'm not advocating. I'm just asking the question. At $1 a condom, if she shops at CVS pharmacy's website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms or a thousand of them a year. We've done all kinds of research on this. And what about these deadbeat boyfriends or random hookups that these babes are encountering here, having sex with nearly three times a day? While in law school.



And to the real problem with the fake fluke controversy...



> Where do you think the insurance companies forced to cover this cost get the money to pay for these co-eds to have sex? It comes from health care insurance premiums that everybody else pays. There isn't anything free.


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Should the Govt have the right to even force health care to begin with?  I say no but That will be for the Supreme Court to decide.



But that is a different issue.
Personally I think yes. But again, it's a different matter from the one I am aiming at.


----------



## granfire (Mar 2, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Rush reacts to the fake outrage over fluke...
> 
> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks
> 
> ...



Nope, not this topic.
Rush is being crude, rude and pretty much disgusting in this matter.

The question I was asking was about the institutions, not his lack of manners.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 2, 2012)

The problem is letting a corporation, which by its' nature has the first concern of profits, determine the morality of medical treatments for its' employees.  What if the corporation has Scientologist that are opposed to any form of drugs for mental diseases?  Jehovah Witness as a CEO that believe surgery is against God's will?  This creates a huge loophole that cooporations can and will exploit.  

I do find it ironic that many of those companies that are having such issues paying for birth control for women, which often have other beneficient effects other than the actual birth control, have and still do pay for erectile dysfunction drugs for men.  Which have only one use.  I guess no man would use those type of drugs to increase thier ability to have sex outside of marriage.  

Rush is just being Rush.  He has a right to spout the nonsense...just as others have a right to call him a douchebag when he does and hold his advertisers accountable for enabling him to practice his "free speech."


----------



## crushing (Mar 4, 2012)

granfire said:


> *Actually not worth of any more airtime*, considering who we are talking about.



Actually, it SHOULD NOT be worth the airtime it is getting, but it is worth every bit of airtime for the political establishment.

First, Limbaugh asks a rhetorical question; does asking other people to subsidize one's sexual activities make the person receiving the benefits a slut or prostitute.  Later in the same stupid rant he says that indeed he does not think that Fluke is a slut.  The sensational media story becomes "LIMBAUGH CALLS WOMAN A SLUT"

By taking this AM radio shock jock and making a huge news story out of his rather stupid rhetorical questions, the media is able to manufacture a figurehead for the Democrats to run against this election year.  Inflating this story also serves as a distraction from the real news that wouldn't be so kind to the politicians in charge.  Why else would the media resurrect a long gone Limbaugh and spin his comments as they have?

Turning his into a big story does follow nicely with the narrative that has been created after the hearing that was specifically about religious freedom, but misrepresented in the media as a "hearing about birth control" complete with its staged picture.

By the way, has anyone been able to produce one bill, or even an elected politician or candidate for office that as a matter of public policy wants to ban birth control?  I know Santorum has made comments where he thinks birth control pills may be dangerous, and that he wouldn't support denying people birth control as a matter of public policy.  That's about the most negative thing said about birth control by anyone.

http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/08/...d-yasmin-linked-to-increased-blood-clot-risk/


----------



## shinbushi (Mar 4, 2012)

no health care should cover condoms.  Can't pay for them don't have sex.  If i ever provide health care for my employees it will NOT cover stupid crap like this.  as is i have mostly 1099s and 1 employee.


----------



## granfire (Mar 4, 2012)

shinbushi said:


> no health care should cover condoms.  Can't pay for them don't have sex.  If i ever provide health care for my employees it will NOT cover stupid crap like this.  as is i have mostly 1099s and 1 employee.



Why not?
it's a quarter well spend, considering the follow cost for STDs and pregnancies.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 5, 2012)

Yeah, that "quarter between the knees" theory has worked oh so well for so very many millenia.


----------



## granfire (Mar 5, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Yeah, that "quarter between the knees" theory has worked oh so well for so very many millenia.



a quarter?
High class area you are from. Around here it's a penny...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 5, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, 'this case' being how on grounds of believes BC shall be kept exempt from healthcare plans because the church objects to it.
> But this is more about the institution's rights to object to it, vs an individual right to conscientious objections.



I am curious if you have any moral beliefs that you would object to the state mandating you to violate?  

Do you consider members of a church part of a corporate entity, or individuals who collectively have a right to determine how their contributions to a church are spent?  Or something else?

Do you think a church has to subject itself in all cases, to the morals of the Federal Government?


----------



## granfire (Mar 5, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I am curious if you have any moral beliefs that you would object to the state mandating you to violate?
> 
> Do you consider members of a church part of a corporate entity, or individuals who collectively have a right to determine how their contributions to a church are spent?  Or something else?
> 
> Do you think a church has to subject itself in all cases, to the morals of the Federal Government?



Federal government has no morals.

church is a tricky one. But in general, there is a huge divide between the people in the church and the overhead, the institution. 

Maybe my morals are steeped in practicality, but off the top of my head I can't tell you a personal moral issue government could force me to violate. 
There might be one, not sure though. I will let you know when I get to it.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 5, 2012)

Morality cannot be legislated, even if we want it. When the "morality" of one prohibits the health choices of another, rights are violated.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 5, 2012)

granfire said:


> Federal government has no morals.
> 
> *I don't know if we're on the same page.  I was asking if there are any moral values you have, that you would object to the government passing a law which required you to go against that moral belief.  The government is not a person, but elected officials are allowed, in agreement with the constitution, to pass law which its citizens will be required to adhear to.  In that sense, I guess you could say the government has moral values.  But again, that wasn't my question.  I think you may have answered my question in your third paragraph however.
> *
> ...



Just trying to understand.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 5, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> Morality cannot be legislated, even if we want it. When the "morality" of one prohibits the health choices of another, rights are violated.



Morality is a system of values. Legislation is codification of values that are to be enforced. Rights are entitlements. "Morality cannot be legislated," may work in certain contexts, but in fact, it's usually just a catch frase when you don't have a viable argument against proposed legislation. Legislation sets the moral standards of the jurisdiction for which they are legislated. They may be less stringent than higher government entities, or equal. They may agree with some religious beliefs or oppose them.

Anyone's religious morality may disagree with another religion, or the personal belief of any person. But there is no right unless the government over a set of people grants it. Until a government grants a right to receive contraceptives, or have abortions at government expense, there is no such right. What you consider a right of health choice, another may consider a moral abomination. In the USA, the government has held that abortion is the mother's choice. It is therefore a right whether or not you or I agree. It is not a requirement. Contraceptives at government (therefore yours and my) expense is not yet a right. Neither is it a requirement yet.

Whether or not a corporate or religious entity has rights normally given to individuals is another question. It seems our laws and their interpretation are leaning more and more that way.  At least for business corporations.  

Interestingly, the so called separation of church and state, seems to be more restricted, and generally a one way street.  The church cannot meddle in the state's business, but the state can meddle in the church's business.  Thus this thread and discussion.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 5, 2012)

I am now putting on my flame suit and entering my secret underground bunker.  :uhyeah:


----------



## elder999 (Mar 5, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> The church cannot meddle in the state's business, but the state can meddle in the church's business. Thus this thread and discussion.




This has always been the case-there are numerous examples from history.The forced Mormon abolition of polygamy for Utah statehood comes to mind, but there are lots of others.....


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 5, 2012)

elder999 said:


> This has always been the case-there are numerous examples from history.The forced Mormon abolition of polygamy for Utah statehood comes to mind, but there are lots of others.....



Indeed there have been instances, both ways.  But your example is more a compromise of a religious belief to gain statehood in the USA.  The Federal Government had no real desire to require that until the Utah Territory requested statehood.

The Catholic Church often meddled in state affairs, as late as the 1920s, and in some places still may.  Henry VIII certainly meddled in church affairs when he nullified the Catholic Church's control over state affairs in his country, and became the head of his country's church.

But as we use the phrase "separation of church and state," supposedly a Jefferson priciple, the closest the constitution comes to it is telling the Federal Government to refrain from a state religion.  The individual States were not so constrained, and in fact, some indeed had State religions.


----------

