Of course not. But I made you look, didn’t I?
And seriously, when progressives, Democrat pundits, and Romney supporters start telling you that Rush Limbaugh is conservatism’s problem, it’s probably time to admit we’ve ceded yet another definition to the Marxist propagandists.
Pretty soon, when the Left gets its way, candidates like Mitt Romney will be “severe conservatives” — largely because everyone to the right of them will be cast as prudish fringe Bircher kooks who hate gays, women, minorities, sex, and social justice, and are embarrassments to the “sane” Republicans who revile them.
In just such a way does the “respectable” political culture creep ever more leftward. With our very own useful idiots doing much of the heavy lifting to take it there. Without even knowing they’re doing it. Or, if you’re less inclined toward generosity, without even caring.
Pragmatism!
For fun: Rush Limbaugh’s Undeniable Truths Of Life.
In the case of those who’d profess some fondness for conservatism, however deep or shallow, we only have to wonder why this query (“Is Rush Limbaugh killing, etc.?”) arises in their minds than that they wouldn’t rather ask themselves the simpler question, “Why seek a scapegoat?”. Merely by looking in the mirror they’ll find their culprits.
Do they still speak of personal responsibility? And don’t burst into flames?
Is Rush Limbaugh the one trying to climb atop the heap on the hilts of all the knives buried in the backs of other conservatives, like he was some damn politician?
Well then, there you go.
I haven’t looked at any of the complaining sites. Is this more of the usual perception is reality and have a care for teh narrative bullshit?
Yep. Rush totally doesn’t get that he is a loud mouth, unimportant, even unhelpful bully who is making “us” look bad in front of People Who Really Matter. And independents.
There was something about it on Ace’s this morning, but I didn’t read it. I just can’t take it any more.
Was Rush out of line when he called Fluke a slut, yeah.
Am i required to denounce him for being out of line, no.
And neither are the myriad GOP politicians required to denounce his remarks, much to the chagrin of the Dems who make those demands.
Oh, but if you disagree with Ace for saying he’s not showing enough solidarity, you’re a hater who hates and has no good position, because he’s all about right and wrong, not perception or go-along-get-along-ism at all. Except for Rush. I think.
Again — I can’t take it anymore.
BT, I didn’t hear what Rush said, so I am flying blind here. But didn’t Fluke herself say she was a slut? And that’s why she needs Catholics to pay for her contraception?
Does it really make a difference if you use a euphemism? (In some situations, yes, I guess it does. The presence of my mom and/or grandmother certainly drives me into euphemism.)
“Was Rush out of line when he called Fluke a slut, yeah.”
Jane, you ignorant slut!
Ace’s defense of Rush’s joke qua joke is pretty good. He quotes David Letterman’s “defense” of his tasteless joke against Palin’s daughter:
A bit belabored exposition on cruelty and humor, but the point still holds.
If Rush is destroying the conservative movement by making strident conservative, anti-political arguments, then the conservative movement (or is it the GOP) needs destroying.
If I remember right, the rhetorical point Rush was making is what else do you call a woman who drops $3k/yr on birth control, doesn’t want the financial responsibilty anymore, but expects “society” to pick up the tab so she can carry on in the manner to which she’s accustomed.
I don’t think he was out of line at all. Nor do I care if she’s a lesbian merely advocating on behalf of all the heterosexual sluts at Georgetown Law.
That’s how I understood it.
Fluke already established what she is. Now we’re just haggling over price.
Recall that I defended Letterman as well. Rather famously. For which it was “proven” that I defend child rape.
Another of the Left’s many ‘for-me-but-not-for-thee’ double standards. In this case, the right to assign collective guilt. Notice there are never demands for Democrats to denounce or distance themselves from, say, Bill Maher’s more provocative utterances. (Or, as dicentra reminds us, Letterman’s crassness.) Nor should there be.
No we’re not. “In this instance we can’t even use the arguing about price line from the old joke as the price has been announced in advance and is no more than $3 per night.”
Ah, point taken.
My point, poorly expressed, was that there is no group guilt in my mind.
I was unaware that Fluke self labeled as a slut. I’m pretty sure she did not use those words.
But really her sex life is not the issue. The issue is federal government overreach and a violation of the first amendment.
Character assassination takes the real issue off center stage.
“Is Rush Limbaugh killing the conservative movement?”
The political establishment, the entertainment-industrial complex and the Left in politics, education and news media (but I repeat myself) have worked for decades to stigmatize and marginalize conservatism (or, what Jeff reminds us is classical liberalism). And guys on our side are worried about Limbaugh. Good God.
I think having the Dems run on “They want out whores to die from lack of free birth control!” is a good thing.
I’m not sure what the defense of Letterman was. My take on it is that whoever wrote the joke obviously thought they were talking about Bristol Palin, not Willow. If you want to say Bristol is fair game for a joke about getting knocked up during the 7th inning stretch, have at it.
They were criticized for the fact that that girl in question was underaged, and the didn’t have the guts to admit their mistake. So, fine, you want to joke about knocking up 15 year olds, and defend that, or would you prefer to answer for the lesser crime of not knowing which Palin daughter is which? Take your pick, and live with the consequences.
As for Ace, he’s mad at Rush because he thought he was being criticized on the air for something or other (Rush did not name him, but referred to bloggers). Ace is notorious for holding grudges, and this week Rush is the focus. Last week it was Santorum. Next week it’ll be something/someone else. Drama, drama, drama.
“But really her sex life is not the issue. The issue is federal government overreach and a violation of the first amendment.”
With regards to the Fluke woman, she made sex the issue. She eagerly jumped on the national stage during a hotly contested election, and said she can’t pay for her sex life, so someone else must provide.
“Character assassination takes the real issue off center stage.”
Nah, we need to merely describe her character, and that will point to the real issue. You know, the barbarians are at the gate…
That was my defense. The joke didn’t make sense otherwise. It was a lazy joke, too.
I’m not going to defend the terms used, because it’s not my style. Rush is a big boy, and can use whatever terms he chooses. It would be similar to the issue of Rush’s girth. Lots of people call him “fat.” That’s not a very nice way to describe somebody who is overweight, but when a person is carrying those extra pounds, I think most of us are assuming he’s eating more calories than his body needs, and he’s not burning them off fast enough to keep them off his person. If Rush were to go before Congress and tell them he thinks we need to provide him with free diet pills, I think most of us would question why he doesn’t just eat less/exercise more. Again, either call him a fatty or merely acknowledge that his problem is a calorie uptake/outsourcing problem, I really don’t see what difference it makes.
She came to Georgetown to make the Jesuits do what she wanted them to do, then went before Congress and begged for money for contraceptives that are already cheap and readily available.
She lied about who she was, what her motives were, and what the real issue here is. She got called out for it. She character assassinated herself.
So if her need for contraceptives was not based on lowering the risk of pregnancy but more on regulating her periods and she testified to congress based on that criteria is she still fair game?
Because the pills would have a secondary usage if she reneged on her abstinence pledge.
“That was my defense. The joke didn’t make sense otherwise.”
Ah… well, you know what they say about great minds and all that.
To whom?
Had she testified based on a demonstrative medical needI doubt she’d have been characterized in the same way. But she didn’t.
And if she had a medical need and knew it before signing up for Georgetown, she should have either planned ahead or gone to a different school — one not run by Jesuits.
I’m not sure but I bet the Catholic rules allow hormonal regulation for that sort of thing regardless.
Catholic girl I knew had irregular cycles (low body fat from running competitively) and went on the pill. It wasn’t much of an issue for her or her family (she wasn’t 18 yet).
So if her need for contraceptives was not based on lowering the risk of pregnancy but more on regulating her periods and she testified to congress based on that criteria is she still fair game?
If she needs hormone therapy to regulate her cycles, then she’s not using contraception, she’s taking hormones.
Therapeutically.
You can’t infer her behavior from that fact, so “slut” would be uncalled for.
“Mooch,” on the other hand.
Likely.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say they don’t. She’d have to buy them for herself, or go to Planned Parenthood and show that she was in need and get them heavily discounted. Or go to Wal-Mart and get them at $10 a month or so.
This is the kind of thing you look into when you’re making decisions about where you work or go to school. Before I chose to attend U Denver instead of Drew or Emory or Notre Dame, et al., I had to weigh what they were offering with the location, the travel, etc. Before my wife accepted a new job she looked at total compensation packages, not just salary.
It’s part of being an adult.
Oh, definitely. And doing the exact opposite just so that you can take down non-compliant institutions? It’s part of being a hardcore leftist activist.
Looks like Harlan Co. is catching a tornado.
Why would you want to be that when the Democrats are promising permanent adolescence in NeverNever Land?
If you haven’t seen it, Jonah’s tribute to Breitbart, “The Five-Alarm Firebell Falls Silent”:
And from today’s Goldberg file:
Not all the Breitbart tributes are worth reading, but Jonah’s definitely are. When Steyn’s comes out, that will be, too.
“Rush is a big boy, and can use whatever terms he chooses. It would be similar to the issue of Rush’s girth.”
Rush hasn’t been fat for quite awhile.
I’m not sure here enrollment at Georgetown under false pretenses would make her a slut. She took classes didn’t she? She just had a secondary agenda.
Which begs the question, was Hannah Giles a slut?
Yes, that does beg the question.
heh
Okay, without the snark, begging the question isn’t saying that it raises a question. It takes an assumption as true.
“Okay, without the snark, begging the question isn’t saying that it raises a question. It takes an assumption as true.”
Learn something new everyday.
Like pretending to be a prostitute to expose ACORN’s perfidy is somehow the same as enrolling in a Catholic University so you can complain about how they won’t pay for your birth control pills and agitate for the institution to change or ignore it’s doctrine to suit your convenience.
There’s another name for it too: Petitio Principii
Heh, I know it and still manage to occasionally say it in the wrong circumstances, BT. I also sometimes use non sequitur instead of red herring from time to time.
Brain lesion, probably.
I don’t think her enrollment at Georgetown under false pretenses does make her a slut. I think her attitude toward sex and sexual mores makes her a slut. The fact that her sexual beliefs are also her political beliefs is — well, it’s sad, actually. Very small and very sad.
“So if her need for contraceptives was not based on lowering the risk of pregnancy but more on regulating her periods and she testified to congress based on that criteria is she still fair game?”
How about this, is it fair game for an employer to provide only a high deductible catastrophic health plan, with any secondary plans the responsibility of the employee?
When did the responsibility for a persons health fall on their boss?
The walls of the slippery slope are beginning to blur…
Amen, Lee.
Birth control is one of those classic things that shouldn’t be insured because you know what it costs and whether or not you’ll need it. You’re not insuring against anything nor are you allowing some people to save money by making different choices. Using insurance in this way is a big reason why some people can’t afford it all.
This whole it’s unfair that birth control is so exspensive spat has been reminding me of something I read somewhere sometime long enough ago that I don’t remember the where or the when. But anyways, some perspicacious fellow observed about a discussion by Sandra Fluke grad-/professional school types, commiserating about the difficulty of finding enough money to pay the monthly grocery bill, that the problem wasn’t “food insecurity,” as they were calling it, it was the willingness to blow the equivalent of a month’s worth of groceries on fashion or entertainment, and thus a matter of priorities.
If your 30, in nominally good health and reasonably competent (like say competent enough to get into Georgetown Law) and you can’t manage your own affairs, you deserve to be roundly mocked. Slut-shamed even.
It’s kinda like how Danica Patrick is happy to leave health care questions to the government. She doesn’t need government, she needs a father or a husband.
Oh, but if you disagree with Ace for saying he’s not showing enough solidarity, you’re a hater who hates and has no good position, because he’s all about right and wrong, not perception or go-along-get-along-ism at all. Except for Rush. I think.
The logic over there has developed the topology of a pretzel.
“She doesn’t need government, she needs a father or a husband.”
Oooo, another mushroom bruise…
He rejected in the marrow of his bones the idea that conservatives needed to apologize for being conservative or that liberals had any special authority to pronounce on the political decency and honesty of others.
The Pragmatic Republicans called to remind us that we need not apologize for being conservative, but we should shut up about it.
I’ve tried to point out a couple of times that what Fluke said in her testimony was never framed as being about her but was all set up as hearsay at best, speculation at most and outright lies at worst and ones which can never be checked as everything testified to in about anonymous persons.
This was obviously done so that none of the “stories” could be fact checked on the internet.
At least until after the election, right?
In the gender-neutral society, we have to ask, what harm in being thought a promiscuous sex seeker, whether one is so or not?
The logic over there has developed the topology of a pretzel.
Or a Gordian knot. Sometimes adults need Ritalin, too.
One thing she may not have realized is that for many years in TV shows and jokes, when someone talks about a problem and says ” I have this friend that…” everybody has been taught to assume you are talking about yourself but want to hide that fact.
You know how all the smart Republicans just know in their bones that we have to appeal to “independents” and Only Romney Can Do That? Because, just you wait… once Mitt is in office, it will be rock-ribbed Massachusetts conservatism as far as the eye can see. In other words, after a month or so we will hear “We cannot govern too conservatively, we have the mid-terms to consider. Let’s wait until after 2014 to roll out the big changes.”
So it goes.
Someone made a point about the dissonance they should feel about the pride of a slut walk turning into the horror of being thought a slut, sdferr.
There’s probably a wide divergence of opinion on the slut issue itself from the various commentators here but I don’t see why they don’t take it as a universal compliment. Wasn’t Sex in the City very popular in their circles?
“In the gender-neutral society, we have to ask, what harm in being thought a promiscuous sex seeker, whether one is so or not?”
heh. I’ve thought that myself. Why don’t they just call Rush a square and roll their eyes?
It should be like the opposite of when you call a goodie two shoes a boy scout, with the same good nature.
Man. Proggs are uptight!
“Why don’t they just call Rush a square and roll their eyes?”
To answer myself, painting Rush in particular and conservatives in general as misogynists is helpful to the cause.
Too bad so many on our side are willing to hold the pallet.
I can’t recommend Harvey Mansfield’s Manliness too strongly, particularly to be read in this circumstance — for the hilarity.
“Like pretending to be a prostitute to expose ACORN’s perfidy is somehow the same as enrolling in a Catholic University so you can complain about how they won’t pay for your birth control pills and agitate for the institution to change or ignore it’s doctrine to suit your convenience.”
The only difference I can see is that Giles was successful.
ACORN — a Catholic University
Why yes, we can see it now, right there in the first amendment guarantee to religious freedom.
So what’s the difference between a slut, a skank, a tart, or a wanton woman? What’s really important is the intention of the speaker, and not the words themselves, because Rush’s intention was to point out irony in a humorous way, not so much as to “make a joke” as Ace was trying to say.
“The only difference I can see is that Giles was successful.”
Really? That’s the only difference you can see? You might want to get your eyes checked.
Ace is a bit off his rocker these days. The sum of his position seems to be that he would rather buy Ms. Fluke’s birth control pills than listen to Rush and Rick S. scold him about his sexual habits.
Some of that “severe” conservatism we’re hearing so much about, I guess.
False pretenses
Giles>Acorn> Acorn de-funded
Fluke-Catholic University> What exactly has changed?
Is an assault on the first amendment guarantee of free religious expression now taking a back seat to ascertaining the level of sluttiness of this Fluke person?
Will the only topic of interest concerning ObamaCare now be whether or not his administration is successful in forcing prelates to bow before him?
Rush left a hanging curve out there for the dems to rally around.
No one thinks Fluke an actual slut though, do you think BT? Doesn’t every sentient witness understand Limbaugh was merely pushing her arguments to an absurdist comedic position? Which, obviously, disincludes Democrats by definition. But then, Rush has never been terribly inclusive when it comes to stupid Democrats.
Considering that they made a show of walking out of Issa’s hearing over Sandra Fluke’s “testimony,” and then held there own very special show hearing in order to showcase Sandra Fluke, before making a show of Limbaugh’s mean derrogatory sexism, I don’t think they needed Rush in order to hold a rally.
And calling Fluke a slut wasn’t the most “sexist” thing he did this week.
I’m really disappointed that I haven’t seen anyone, anywhere, point out that a fluke is also a parasitic worm.
In her defense, according to Ernst she is spending $3000 a year on birth control, so perhaps she couldn’t afford it. But then that works out to 30 condoms a day…
Oddly enough, I’ve been hearing news-readers pronounce Fluke’s name Fluck. Which, you couldn’t hardly write this stuff.
1. Flaunting her sexual promiscuity.
2. Lying about stuff.
3. Telling me to pay for it.
Put them in any order, I don’t think it matters much. You can do all of the above, BT. So can I. I’m not going to fault Rush for not emphasizing the correct order of outrage perpetrated by the left. I think he’s doing a fine job.
I’m really disappointed that I haven’t seen anyone, anywhere, point out that a fluke is also a parasitic worm.
That sort of fluke seldom worries about contraception.
I don’t know if Fluke is a slut.
And what’s wrong with being a slut? And I thought that we all lived in a brave new world where a slut was someone who had courageously liberated themselves from the backward mores of an almost puritan society of pleasure hating hypocrites. What happened to taking the word back? What happened to colleges having sex weeks and dress like a slut day as a positive exploration of 21st century youth identity?
But seriously for all I know she is monogamous and dedicated to a “partner” who she intends to be faithful to and marry.
My complaint is that she wants me to buy her expensive birth control while she goes to an expensive law school on a grant. She claims that she can’t afford it so that means we are denying her access to it so he government must employ law which is ultimatefy a form of force to subsidize that “need” of hers.
There is obviously some branding and brand loyalty based on supposed advantages (like no acne formulas and such )between various common forms of oral contraceptive but the cheapest generic ones are said to cost around $9 for a month’s worth at Walmart without insurance. That’s around $108.
Adding basic functional (non ribbed, edible cinnamon flavored flow in the dark ones I mean) condoms to that and you might be up to $150 to $200 a year. Fluke says whatever she is using (Maybe a five year impant? Multiple diaphragm fitting? ) or would prefer to use is $1000 a year and she can’t afford it.
So her position is that for her to be free and have access to birth control she needs a really expensive form of it that I should help pay for so she can stay in law school. She is not willing to settle for $9 a month at Walmart.
I don’t call that slutty. As far as a I know sluts either pay for things themselves or get their partners to pay. They stay off of the public dime. They handle their own business.
What Fluke is doing is not slutty so much as it is infantile and parasitic. To the left she is a courageous hero now because she wants everyone to be forced to buy her expensive birth control while she goes to law school. She is a client of a system of hand outs demanding more and more from the pockets of others during one of the roughest economies I have ever lived through.
Objecting to this is apparently very bad, especially in a time of rising energy prices and 9+% unemployment.
What Fluke did was put a face on the issue.
The right was doing fine with the push back by questioning her math, citing wal-mart pricing for generics and re-emphasizing the conflict between the first amendment and i guess her claim for equal protection.
Does anyone know what Planned Parenthood charges for their federally subsidized contraceptive products?
Rush just wanted to help out the best he could.
30 condoms a day? I hear that Sheryl Crow washes and re-uses hers (and uses both sides of the toilet paper).
“I don’t know if Fluke is a slut….”
No question, we can emphasis the coercive aspect of what they are trying to push here, but don’t discount the effect they were going for when they chose this woman to be their spokesperson. It’s no accident that it’s a Catholic University, and whether she’s really sleeping with multiple partners or not, I’m pretty sure the implication was intentional precisely because they wanted to flaunt her promiscuity.
Otherwise, they could have found a poor waitress somewhere, trying to make ends meet, trying to avoid bringing another babe into the world, thus increasing the surplus population.
They chose her. And it’s not just about wanting to force us to buy their pills.
To the best of my knowledge, one cannot go to law school on a grant. Graduate schools require loans or assistantships. But, I didn’t go to law school, so maybe I’m wrong.
Anyway, she’s a slut. And damned proud of it.
Some people don’t want a culture war. I get that, and I understand why some people would prefer not to emphasize it as much as Rick S. does. I would even suggest that if you could show that it is a losing issue, I and a lot of other people would gladly back off, but I don’t believe it is a losing issue! I believe a lot of people CLAIMING it’s a losing issue do so because they disagree with the position being taken by Rick and Rush and any number of others on the right.
Fine, let’s fight among ourselves about this, if we must, but it’s disingenuous to demand the social cons shut up about it.
Upthread and otherthread, Geoff made the point that this Fluke person basically grouped a bunch of random, unsupported anecdotes together and gave it as her “testimony” (scare quotes because of the attempted Dem optics of actual congressional testimony).
That probably relates to some of this, I don’t know. Did anyone listen to her talk? Did she say she needed to spend a grand a year on birth control or did she say that she heard someone needed to spend a grand a year on birth control.
Is it fair to call her collage of exaggerated anecdotes a slut?
It feels fair.
I listened to her and she never referred to the anecdotes as her own. They were always “women ‘we’ talked to…” I’m with geoff: who is we?
BurtTC, where are we being forced to buy her pills?
Her insurance is provided by Georgetown University and I assume is billed to her in one way or another.
Georgetown offers a policy that does not cover contraceptives.
HHS wants all policies to cover contraceptives.
Fluke is in agreement with HHS and disagreement with Georgetown.
Georgetown is of the opinion that the Constitution trumps Fluke and HHS.
I agree with Georgetown.
Let the demonizing begin.
I would like to know if this woman has a cell phone, a data plan, internet access, high speed internet, cable/satellite TV, a car, a gym membership, and so on. Because without knowing that I have no way of knowing what else she might claim a right to later on and that we’ll all have to buy for her.
Plus, if she has any of those things, we can suggest a trade-off: cancel cable and you can fuck all you’d like, as protected as you want to be, and nobody on my side of the aisle will give a shit one way or the other.
Indeed? Perhaps the government could save some money by issuing Ms. Fluke some spermacide and a patch kit?!
Damn composite sluts. All they do all day is copulate.
This.
I won’t pretend he’s doing something else just so that the left can again frame the argument. If our establishment hysterics were around during the 1700s, they’d be hyperventilating over Swift’s unhelpfullness in re: the Irish problem.
Falsely. And intentionally foisting on us a false “interpretation” of what he was doing.
So fight back. They’re lying. Tell them so. Tell them why. Or else they’ll never stop, and we’ll forever be told to self edit so as not to offend those looking to invent offenses.
That seems a bit extreme, when all it would really take is turning off the radio.
That’s a problematic assumption based on how insurance mandates work.
Everyone in that Georgetown pool will pay. A nun on that plan will pay. (They’re either paying by tuition or as alternate compensation in lieu of salary.)
Just as everyone everywhere is billed with all these governmental mandates on insurance.
I’ve tried teaching that to the right.
Turns out many of them are lawyers and their entire profession crumbles under such coherent linguistic rules. So they’d rather just keep fighting on the left’s hermeneutic turf.
“Got Slut? The Left Launches a Coordinated Attack Against Rush Limbaugh”
Well, it’s more than just the Left. Though I’m beginning to wonder.
The cost of my daughter’s birth control depends on how I choose to amortize the shotgun, and whether I include still include her now-married older sisters.
“That’s a problematic assumption based on how insurance mandates work.”
bh i am talking about today. Not what could or will be. I am not part of the Georgetown University insurance pool so i don’t even think i contribute to the treatment of her flu. There is the off chance that my underwriter is affiliated with Georgetown’s underwriter in order to form a bigger pool so i might have to hedge just a little.
Here’s Rush’s actual comment:
In honor of Jeff’s teachings, I will say a true thing without fear.
As anyone who ever went to college knows, these women aren’t sluts in any true meaning of the word. Just try picking up the one attractive girl at their table. Go ahead. They’re world-class cock blockers is what they are.
Unless they’ve had a couple and then they tell you how they always thought you were hot and you’re supposed to pretend they’re not dating that metrosexual, soon-to-be-hen-pecked sap they’re giving a bimonthly handjob to that you occasionally see in their company and pity.
Too harsh? Sorry, my progressive friends, I’m part of the reality-based community and still remember some of my ill-spent youth.
You and Otter were kindred spirits, bh?
I am not part of the Georgetown University insurance pool so i don’t even think i contribute to the treatment of her flu.
Isn’t the HHS mandate supposed to apply to all insurance policies? Ergo, you’re paying for someone’s birth control if you’re on group insurance.
That was a very Abe comment.
“Isn’t the HHS mandate supposed to apply to all insurance policies? Ergo, you’re paying for someone’s birth control if you’re on group insurance.”
Is in effect as we speak or is it still in the fine tuning stage?
“I’m really disappointed that I haven’t seen anyone, anywhere, point out that a fluke is also a parasitic worm.”
berger,
Abe pointed this out a couple of threads ago. Yeah, I’m trackin;-)
BT, yes. HHS, or Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius if you prefer, have created this new and unalienable right, even of you’re a goddamn Catholic, like Kathleen Sebelius.
Every time I hear her name I think of that X-Files episode with the giant fluke worm in the sewage plant. Only now it’s going down on a chick with a condom over it’s mouth hole.
If we’re going to be literal, Fluke does not want to be paid to have sex, she wants to be protected from the consequences of her sex on someone else’s dime. Not a whore, per se, but certainly a looter.
Sandra Fluke
I’m on her side.
Welcome aboard slewcunt !!!
Insert an appropriate comma at y’alls leisure.
Pablo, is it current law? is there a date effective?
You know, if Ms Fluke would just take it in the ass, we could stop worrying about her birth control costs and proceed to her STD issues.
Put a sock on it, sweetheart.
Although I have to say seeing leigh trackin Abe (even subliminally) is kinda disconcerting;-)
BT: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/08/20110801b.html
Stick an apostrophy somewhere in there, too,
period.
Health problems like pregnancy. Which, who knew you could get that from fucking? Obama is so frigging smart!
In the intrest of comity, I think we should all take a number.
No one could ever know such a thing, Pablo. That’s why it requires insurance. Because birth control, fucking, and babies follow no pattern whatsoever.
This is like being hit by a bus or noticing a weird lump getting dressed. You know, something you might want to buy insurance against.
Insert ye an “e”, please, where practicable,
Oops!
Missed another period.
Here’s a period, guins.
.
(I just wanted to join in.)
“New health plans will need to include these services without cost sharing for insurance policies with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012. ”
So the deal is not done.
Abe and I went to different schools together, Danger.
BT, are you trying to make the case that there are some things the insurance company covers at their cost?
Insurance is a capitalistic venture, right? A contract where the more that is covered, the more it costs?
This ain’t rocket science.
One of the points Rush was trying to make this week is that the Democrats are simultaneously claiming that Evil Republicans want to control the sex lives of everyone by taking away birth control, while offering to control the sex lives of everyone by forcing everyone to subsidize everyone else’s birth control.
Who does Bertha Butt and her sisters have more to fear from?
Lee, wasn’t that the Obama Solomon like compromise to the first amendment issue? In the case of religious organizations the coverage would be provided free of charge, so the religious organizations conscience could remain clear. And the insurance companies would be in compliance.
That’s what they said on TV.
They lied.
bastards
Dirty lying bastards.
I’m shocked! Shocked, I sez!
Unless it’s already been linked. Then I’ll pretend to be less shocked.
Still, no one told me she was 30 and a past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
Which is a thing apparently. Law Students for Reproductive Justice. Yes, that’s a thing.
And they wonder why their diplomas aren’t worth shit.
Can someone answer a question for me? Is it better to edit your school’s law review or is it mo’ better to talk about an insatiable need for 10x the average person’s contraceptives?
I’m always getting those two things confused.
I guess it depends on whether you want to fly air force one or beg in public for a guilt free orgasm.
Not all people have the same aspirations…
Hmmm. My first look at Ms. Fluke. I’m not usually one to make mean ad homonem comments, so let me just say that she should be less worried about contraceptives than that booming tick, tick, tick,/b> echoing inside her cranium.
I know, preview is your friend.
I, for one, welcome our new Democratic Republic of Bipartisan Law Students for Reproductive Justice overlords.
Ha! I totally forgot about Obama.
It’s like they’re actively trying to make a JD worthless. Their fellow guild members should repudiate these sorts of folks if they find market value in their educations.
Welcome? Hell, we need to honor our saviors from a Reproductive Justice famine!
I remember with horror the old days, when I had to steal a condom from my older brother, a condom that would sit in my wallet for years, unsubsidized.
It was like the dark ages.
Good times.
I remember that ACORN would have many, many organizations all with the same mailing address. Law Students for Reproductive Justice give 1730 Franklin St. Suite 212 Oakland CA as their headquarters. There seem to be quite a few groups using that address too.
Funding provided indirectly by the usual suspects.
Tides Foundation mostly.
“Or else they’ll never stop,”
Jeff, can you or anyone else provide an example of the Left being stopped verbally, whatever the arguments?
Seriously. They aren’t going to stop. We’re the ones who need to stop: Stop fooling ourselves that we can live in a society that includes their fundamental dishonesty.
isn’t ms. fluke part of the free rider problem we hear so much about?
[…] Jeff Goldstein lives for this narrative stuff and Andrew Breitbart died while denying the media the message. They are so very right. […]
SDN —
They can be stopped on individual issues, is what I meant. Or perhaps better, they can be made to shut up. Albeit usually only until they develop the next line of attack.
I think I’ve just been shown a new McGehee’s Rule for Voting: Never vote for somebody who can’t get along with Rush Limbaugh.
It would have worked in 2008, so it ought to work in 2012.
Maet asked me to leave Ace’s comments last night. I was being a prick but then so where the people I was being a prick too. Apparently symmetry is destined not a part of conflict there. You either suck up, or you just suck. Only fixed arguments are allowed or else you are trolling.
At first I was angry and pushed back but now I realize that Maet’s right.
The blog has sucked and meandered around madly since 2009 or so when the tea party was potentially useful but apparently not civilized enough because the left kept calling hem hicks and nazis and they wanted to run conservatives in purple states. GASP!
The blog shows now signs of ever being serious or consistent. It is a hyperactive mood ring that fills up the empty spaces between rants and news with two week old memes.
It tires to be outrageous and iconoclastic and yet it is also prissy and tepid, and seems obsessed with calling down any other Republican who says anything outrageous because it makes good republicans like ace look bad, y’know when he’s not joking about slaughtering hobos or dipping is huts in pudding for cooling.
The worst thing is that Ace has got into the habit of posts these long cheesy idiotic defenses of his increasingly wacky attacks on the party he’s supposedly trying to defend and coach and tame. The the other side then promptly fucks us all over and he changes position and agrees with all the people who yelled at him and then SLOWLY he backslides until he’s right back where he tarted complaining about how everyone is not as fair and nice and honest as him and it is hurting the party. He wants so bad to be the bigger man AND the guy who does what no one else dares and he because of that keeps walking into brick walls and the repeating the oscillation.
Misguided rant showing suspicion of his own principles and instincts-> Outrage at routine unfair treatment from the other side-> enlightenment and a new way of thinking -> Backsliding -> Misguided rant showing suspicion of his own principles and instincts
It really drives me nuts reading that stuff.
So I took Mate’s “STFU” advice and left. Hell, I might be banned but I kind of doubt it. Whatever.
I’m not claiming that it’s a bad as what happened at LGF but it’s time for me to walk away and just let them be a self hating paranoid island caught between the left and the tea party.
I can’t say I’m much impressed with Hot Air either. Sometimes they are so eager to snark that they won’t even tell me what they are linking to. “DUDE?” is not a good headline. It’s like reading a video game magazine trying to be the Rolling Stone of video games coverage or something, in a time when even Rolling Stone itself is in massive decline. It’s pointless empty MTV-esque foam.
I really think too many of our allies feel some impulse to cooperate with our enemies more than they do us sometimes and then they blame US when those enemies triumph or undermine something. It dooms us to hold ourselves down and repeat mistakes. It’s a prevent defense mentality. Supposedly it’s all necessary because we can’t fight the press or the labels they paste on us. The enemy lives in our heads rent free and pushes buttons at will and we LET them so they won’t hate us as much as know they already do.
So why is it that when we abandon the dour defeatist code of the vaguely penitent, hyper-self aware, always cautious, shamed, auto-flagellating political monk we tend to gain and when we follow it we lose and get screwed and taken advantage of? Is it sinful to be positive and enthusiastic about our own beliefs and negative about our opponent’s? Is it unfair? Why do independents supposedly love it when our enemies get crazy and hate it when we even think about standing up for ourselves and promoting out beliefs?
What is with the stupid desire to maintain this stupid party alchemy of flaky independents, libertarians, Libertarians, paleocons, socons, neocons, tea party, smaller government types, and regionals? We end up with a bimodal message. We end up fighting over what our own platform is. We blend into the other party! Is this even an alliance? Is it more of a yard sale?
Is it a culture thing? What causes this party to hobble and bloodily worry itself on the behalf of seeking favor with it’s major opponents who have consistently shown that they do not hold decency fairness or mercy in any high regard?
Sorry this is so long, and sorry if it’s incoherent. I am angry and ranty today. I am probably mentally a college sophomore right now.
That still leaves you with a 6 yr. advantage over the Jr. High set at that other place.
link
You should relink that on the “Stunner” and “Solidarity” threads newrouter.
newrouter, thanks for providing yet another example of why the Left is too dishonest to live with.