GOP congressman once lamented not being able to call women names

[*PhilHos*]

(07-19-2018, 02:36 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't care for either comment as it paints sections of our country with a broad (and erroneous) brush. On the other hand, I'm tired of hearing about Clinton/Obama. She was a previous lawmaker and presidential candidate who made a generally insulting and divisive comment. That's not really the same thing as the litany of anti-birth control comments, some eloquent, some like this guy's, that have been thrown around over the last decade. It's difficult to discuss an overall issue or policy — or in this case a party with an attitude that half the population doesn't have the right to engage in sex unless it's possible to procreate — when the only answer is "Yeah, but the other side said..." Honestly, it doesn't matter to the discussion if HRC called Trump supporters deplorable. Now, if she called Trump supporters sluts for wanting their birth control to be as protected as a man's erectile dysfunction drugs, then I'd see the reasoning for bringing her in. But I'm pretty sure she just called them deplorable to get down on Trump's level and show she could sling mud, too.

I think you're missing my point. My point is that if you have no problem with Clinton's comments, then you can't be upset at Lewis'. Both people derided a large group of people. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2018, 02:36 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't care for either comment as it paints sections of our country with a broad (and erroneous) brush.

On the other hand, I'm tired of hearing about Clinton/Obama. She was a previous lawmaker and presidential candidate who made a generally insulting and divisive comment. That's not really the same thing as the litany of anti-birth control comments, some eloquent, some like this guy's, that have been thrown around over the last decade. It's difficult to discuss an overall issue or policy — or in this case a party with an attitude that half the population doesn't have the right to engage in sex unless it's possible to procreate — when the only answer is "Yeah, but the other side said..."

Honestly, it doesn't matter to the discussion if HRC called Trump supporters deplorable. Now, if she called Trump supporters sluts for wanting their birth control to be as protected as a man's erectile dysfunction drugs, then I'd see the reasoning for bringing her in. But I'm pretty sure she just called them deplorable to get down on Trump's level and show she could sling mud, too.

Why does everyone think Viagra and such are protected and required to be covered?That's the big point made when talking about requiring birth control. They're not.  My doctor last year asked me if I needed Viagra.  Seriously because I turned 50 she asked me how my joints were etc, and if I needed Viagara.  I was like sure why not.  Not covered.  $700.  I passed.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-19-2018, 02:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you're saying Lewis was correct that Fluke and the women who wanted their birth control covered by insurance were promiscuous sluts.

No, I'm saying Lewis was correct in that someone who has lots of sex with different people is a slut.

(07-19-2018, 02:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: But millions of Trump supporters were NOT posting/saying racist/misogynist things.

Yes. While there were SOME who may have posted/said "deplorable" things, it was NOT millions and certainly not half of Trump supporters.

(07-19-2018, 02:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Glad your "not" a Trump supporter.  

It's kinda sad that you're mental state is dependent on my being a Trump supporter or not. You can call me a liar all you want, that doesn't change the fact that I'm NOT a Trump supporter.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The left doesn't think it's hypocracy because the left believes that what Hillary said is true.

[Benton]

(07-19-2018, 03:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I think you're missing my point. My point is that if you have no problem with Clinton's comments, then you can't be upset at Lewis'. Both people derided a large group of people. 

I get the point. HRC called sexist, racist and homophobic people deplorable, and said they were half of Trump's supporters. Because of that, we now have an unrelated comment brought into many discussions about comments made by lawmakers whose legislation is (arguably) sexist, racist or detrimental to some group or another.

(07-19-2018, 03:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why does everyone think Viagra and such are protected and required to be covered?That's the big point made when talking about requiring birth control. They're not.  My doctor last year asked me if I needed Viagra.  Seriously because I turned 50 she asked me how my joints were etc, and if I needed Viagara.  I was like sure why not.  Not covered.  $700.  I passed.

Federal funding is, in part, used to provide Viagra to some. During recent HCR plans, some Republicans wanted to axe that, but there was no mention of Medicare changes. There's also the $85 million the military spends annually on ED drugs, while non-formulary birth control drugs can cost service members or their spouses out of pocket. Some aren't covered at all.

If private insurance doesn't cover someone's ED drugs, chances are they could get it for less or nothing by having Medicare, becoming a lawmaker or joining the military. The same can't be said for someone needing a specific birth control.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2018, 03:56 PM)Benton Wrote: I get the point. HRC called sexist, racist and homophobic people deplorable, and said they were half of Trump's supporters. Because of that, we now have an unrelated comment brought into many discussions about comments made by lawmakers whose legislation is (arguably) sexist, racist or detrimental to some group or another.



Federal funding is, in part, used to provide Viagra to some. During recent HCR plans, some Republicans wanted to axe that, but there was no mention of Medicare changes. There's also the $85 million the military spends annually on ED drugs, while non-formulary birth control drugs can cost service members or their spouses out of pocket. Some aren't covered at all.

If private insurance doesn't cover someone's ED drugs, chances are they could get it for less or nothing by having Medicare, becoming a lawmaker or joining the military. The same can't be said for someone needing a specific birth control.

I wasn't aware that when Obamacare was being argued, all the people who were yelling about ED drugs were merely talking about people in the military and on Medicare.(83% of whom are over 60.)

[*PhilHos*]

(07-19-2018, 03:56 PM)Benton Wrote: I get the point. HRC called sexist, racist and homophobic people deplorable, and said they were half of Trump's supporters. 

Ummm, no she didn't. She said "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it." She is explicitly calling half of Trump supporters deplorable racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and/or Islamophobes. The fact that you would try to defend her comments is kinda surprising and disappointing.

(07-19-2018, 03:56 PM)Benton Wrote: Because of that, we now have an unrelated comment brought into many discussions about comments made by lawmakers whose legislation is (arguably) sexist, racist or detrimental to some group or another.

First off, we're not talking about the lawmakers legislation. We're talking about A lawmaker's comments from before he was a lawmaker.

More importantly, the same people who are critical of said lawmaker were okay with the presidential candidate they supported making derogatory comments. I just wanted to highlight the hypocrisy. 

[Benton]

(07-19-2018, 04:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I wasn't aware that when Obamacare was being argued, all the people who were yelling about ED drugs were merely talking about people in the military and on Medicare.(83% of whom are over 60.)

I don't think that they were. It's the issue of lawmakers — by and large men — not making an issue of how much tax dollars go to a handful of companies for expensive ED drugs, but making a large issue out of birth control.

(07-19-2018, 04:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Ummm, no she didn't. She said "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it." She is explicitly calling half of Trump supporters deplorable racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and/or Islamophobes. The fact that you would try to defend her comments is kinda surprising and disappointing.

Well, I wasn't. I said earlier I didn't like her comment. I don't know how saying she said it is defending her.   

Quote:First off, we're not talking about the lawmakers legislation. We're talking about A lawmaker's comments from before he was a lawmaker.

His comments before do bear significance as he is a lawmaker now. Clinton, on the other hand, is a retiree, so I'm still not sure what relevance her campaign quote has to do with anything in regard to a sitting lawmaker and how he might legislate. 

Winfield Hancock lost the election to James Garfield. Every once in a while you see something Garfield said or did turn up. Why? Because he was an elected official and had some significance. How often do people discuss Garfield's push for increasing Civil Rights to blacks following the Civil War and someone else responds "Yeah, but Winfield's emails!"?

Quote:More importantly, the same people who are critical of said lawmaker were okay with the presidential candidate they supported making derogatory comments. I just wanted to highlight the hypocrisy. 

That's a deplorably broad brush you're painting with there. 

[Dill]

(07-19-2018, 02:10 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Don't misunderstand me. I don't support the things that Lewis said. Just pointing out yet another instance of hypocrisy in that the same people who defended Clinton's 'deplorables' comment are now upset at Lewis'.

Understood.