"You know who's the winner here? Romney," Meade said to me. He explains that Rush's statement begins with "For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity," and that tracks Santorum's response to Limbaugh's misstep:
Well, he's taking - you know, he's being absurd. But that's, you know, an entertainer can be absurd. And - and he's taking the absurd, you know, the... absurd, you know, sort of, you know, point of view here as to how - how far do you go? And, look, I'm - he's - he's in a very different business than I am. I'm... concerned about the public policy of this president imposing his values... on people of faith who morally object to - to the government telling them they have to do something which they believe is a grave moral wrong.So Santorum sounded like Limbaugh himself, defending his approach. But Limbaugh now says he did it wrong this time: "In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation." And that tracks the way Romney originally responded:
"I'll just say this, which is, it's not the language I would have used... I'm focusing on the issues that I think are significant in the country today, and that's why I'm here talking about jobs and Ohio."So Limbaugh's new statement demonstrates that Romney had the better instinct.
Note that both Santorum and Romney went on to state what they wanted to focus on. Santorum wanted to focus on the freedom of religion aspect of the birth control controversy. Romney wanted to get back to the economy. There too, I'd say, Romney had the better instinct.
ADDED: Here's my post from this morning chastising Rush. It has over 500 comments, many of which are mine, arguing with people who insisted on defending Rush.
Posts
342 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 342 of 342Crack - who is more stupid? The guy who keeps ranting like chicken little endlessly or the one who takes the time to research the issues and study history?
I almost agreed with Crack for a moment.
I agree to this extent. There is no one out there telling the truth anymore. We need politicians and Rush Limbaughs with unshakable core values and convictions. There aren't any.
How can you claim to know the truth without education? Or do you get your degree from Glenn Beck university?
Rush was making a point about her promiscuity.
No, for fucks sake.
He was making a joke that she was asking the government to pay for her sex life.
He said that she needs money for sex. So now she's a prostitute, and she wants us to be her pimps.
And he was laughing at how oversexed she was claiming to be. "I need $3000 worth of birth control."
He did not say she slept around. There was no implication of that. I don't think he used the word "slut" or "whore."
It was rude, and crude, and funny.
It was not mean, nor hateful, nor morally self-righteous.
It was a fucking metaphor.
The MSM framed it as misogyny. In the same way they often frame him as a racist.
He apologized, to make the issue go away. But in essence he was apologizing for a strawman created by his enemies.
The whole thing was a PC circus that had nothing to do with his actual show.
It was a metaphor! LOL!
@edutcher: Many thanks for that info. The worst name I can think for Fluke based on that info would be "Annie Laurie Gaylor clone." (If you don't know who she is, google her).
Alex
Do I understand correctly that you are saying the uneducated cannot know the truth?
For a moment. The election ballot in November has lots of other names down the line. It's not just presidential politics.
Every four years, we also get the biggest turnouts. (Even though America has nothing to brag about in this department.)
Still, you'd notice how good "coattails" are, when you see what Ronald Reagan accomplished back in 1980. And, then, again, in 1984.
HINT: It means that coattails provide voters for your side of the ticket. It boosts others who can suddenly WIN.
The beginning of Anne's battle has lost it's initial nature. There are politics which need a clear battle space.
A win here is a loss for free speech and a win for those that are threatened by .003 percent of media not driven by the...we'll go ahead and fill in blanks. Slut? Who cares, I taught and the term "ho" gets used in alternating fashion with humor and malice.
The greater argument was lost, the fear of language will cinch ever more tightly.
You all really hated the word slut so much that policy holders must all pitch in for every holders fuck?
Phyrric at best.
The other topic besides Flake to Fluke. To the bonus points the democrats pick up? Well. Like WOMEN VOTERS!
Then, you look at the self-inflicted wound Scott Brown gave himself. With what, you ask? By co-sponsoring the Blount shenanigans.
So, it's not just about Obama.
It's about the democrats coming out from under. Because the GOP fumbled the ball.
pm317,
I have been to Utah -- at a conference another prof from Utah U. related to me a surprising fact about how people in Utah are entrepreneurial, more so than the national average and explained that one of the reasons was how the family and even extended family stands by each other which in turn gives the individual freedom to take risks and then make it work.
You went to Utah for a conference - good for you. You want to tell me, now, about France based on your two week trip to Paris?
Did your acquaintance tell you about how they treat people who AREN'T in the family? it the "religion"? No, because they talk about that. Just like yoga people will talk exclusively about exercise to outsiders, but then talk about "otherworldly" bullshit to each other - which they're sure you don't understand and are too nice to ask about - it's all a sham. A fraud. A charade. it's fucking cultism.
And everyone's as afraid to talk about it as they are to call a woman demanding you buy her birth control a slut.
But still you claim you're vetting candidates.
You're fools.
I don't think he used the word "slut" or "whore."
Guess again idiot.
wyo sis said...
I almost agreed with Crack for a moment.
I agree to this extent. There is no one out there telling the truth anymore. We need politicians and Rush Limbaughs with unshakable core values and convictions. There aren't any.
No, they're there, but, if they do tell you the truth, will you stand by them when the Lefty slime machine cranks up into gear?
Or will you walk away because what they say is not what you want to hear?
It's no accident that the last Demo POTUS and the current one are both certifiable sociopaths. Barry even admits it in his book (in saying he let people project onto him what they wanted to). Dick Morris said the same thing about Willie.
Santorum, with whom I disagree, nonetheless has unshakable convictions. So does Ron Paul.
There are a lot of good people out there, but they don't see any value in getting into public life because they know what will happen.
As the man said, "All that needs for evil to happen is for good men to do nothing".
The greater argument was lost, the fear of language will cinch ever more tightly.
"Words have meaning. They have consequences."
- Rush Limbaugh
phx,
what is the truth? Knowing that - and sticking to it - is all that'll save what we have.
That's a real fucked-up way of thinking. Just MO.
Sure, let's NOT know what's going on and think we'll succeed.
Great plan, phx, just fucking brilliant.
Alex @3/3/12 9:29 PM
Are you calling the Georgetown Law Kardashian a Regimental Camp Follower? Now that's funny. True too.
You're calling using the word slut "hate speech"?
Seriously?
If so, then I must seriously ask you why you are not raising the same complaint against Maher.
I reserve the right to call you a hypocrite.
Who did Maher call a "slut"?
Maher's understanding of human relations is, er, slightly more nuanced than Limblob's. That's why he's a successful comedian.
Oh, I know you slower conservatives will tell me that Rush Limblob is funny! Well, humor is subjective. But Maher actually seems to have the ability to get people to laugh even when the joke is about them. Hence, he is a far superior comedian to Limblob.
Or maybe he's just better at getting people to admit the truth about themselves. Limblob, like his conservative "base", only want to laugh at the expense of others. They can never laugh about themselves.
This is called "self-righteousness". So maybe Limblob's sucky comedic abilities aren't the only factor.
Ultimately, comedians get people to laugh because they reveal an unrealized truth. Maher's pretty honest about himself and his "foibles". So it's hard to call him a hypocrite.
OTOH, Limblob takes anonymously labelled Viagra with him on sex tourism trips to the Dominican Republic, and then reverts to 1950s-style sexual shaming of a young woman whose relationships are probably nowhere near as scandalous.
For you conservatives, take notice: This is called being a scumbaggy asshole.
But we do appreciate your obliviousness to it. Please, keep up this sort of condescension and the highly technocratic justifications for it.
Lastly, it's funny to watch Nachos try to keep up the spirit by calling this a minor bump in the road that allows Republicans to focus on issues that go beyond their usual, scary fixations. He's almost as good a cheerleader as W.!
Give Limbaugh "credit." He didn't say "slut" so much as he said he wants Sandra Flake to videotape her "sex-capades." He wanted to view her having sex.
Unlike lots of stuff you get to say; this one? Limbaugh's apology is NOT going to make HIS MISTAKE GO AWAY!
Caters to the right wing nutters? Who else can stand him long enough to actually listen to a broadcast?
Up ahead? On Monday's show, maybe there will be a few less ads! Maybe? Maybe, SNAPPLE returns?
The democrats? They want voters to vote for their candidates ... And, they probably recognize, now, that Mittens will just be another DEWEY.
The GOP can't even run with Patreus on top, and hope he'd bring victory.
All that's left? Recruiting Jeb Buxh? What happens if the conservatives become so angry, they sit on their hands on election day? Ever hear what happened to Bob Dole?
chick, glad to help.
Some phony folksy tried his "she never mistated" act for 2 days, trying to hide behind the strict letter of what she said. The last guy to justify "legally correct" answers was convicted of perjury:
Willie Whitewater.
Now you see how she lied. Also, Google her name and wonkblog for the WaPo's initial piece on her.
How come Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke seems to have hit such a raw nerve?
The right's been spewing hatred against Obama since the beginning of his first term.
Most people HATE to have to listen to the right wingers' rants.
Then this came along. And, BINGO. "The tides turned."
edutcher
"No, they're there, but, if they do tell you the truth, will you stand by them when the Lefty slime machine cranks up into gear?
Or will you walk away because what they say is not what you want to hear?"
Oh, I'll always vote for the most conservative candidate. I just realize that no political person can be uninfluenced by political expediency.
I'll vote for the best conservative out there and work to make sure the next conservative is better than the last. That's how the liberals have done it and it obviously works. It's just exasperating to watch the messy process...
I had hoped that Rush wouldn't cave, but under the circumstances he had to. I deplore the circumstances.
Romney will try to stay on message, he's not dumb, but he'll forever be tied to worst aspects of the Republican party.
That would likely be true of anyone who gets the GOP nod. That's the nature of partisan party politics. Party pundits will always paint the opponent as epitomizing everything they despise about the opposing party.
So do I need to point out that Obama is also forever tied to the worst aspects of the Democratic party?
And since "it is the economy, stupid", I suspect where that is at in the fall will be the biggest deciding factor in the election; not the endless histrionic mewlings of the "gotcha politics" crowd.
(I know I am not adding anything brilliant. To paraphrase Joe Friday, "Just stating the obvious, ma'am".)
Carol_Herman,
Give Limbaugh "credit." He didn't say "slut" so much as he said he wants Sandra Flake to videotape her "sex-capades." He wanted to view her having sex.
Unlike lots of stuff you get to say; this one? Limbaugh's apology is NOT going to make HIS MISTAKE GO AWAY!
Caters to the right wing nutters? Who else can stand him long enough to actually listen to a broadcast?
I did, and would've stood by him if he'd stood by his words, but now? What would I be standing by? A "mistake"? Bullshit. Fluke was trying to make the outrageous a reality and deserved an absurd response. To back away from that - from what he always gave us - for money? He's got enough money. It's over.
Release the hounds,...
As always Althouse conservatives ~ feel free to stop whining at any time ...
or not.
How come Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke seems to have hit such a raw nerve?
The right's been spewing hatred against Obama since the beginning of his first term.
Most people HATE to have to listen to the right wingers' rants.
Then this came along. And, BINGO. "The tides turned."
Because.
If it isn't painfully obvious, Rush Limblob is ugly. He's not just ugly, he's ooooogly. He's fugly. He's butt-ugly.
I mean, there are dogs' assholes that look less unpleasant than Limblob. And they have better personalities.
Conservatives might have thought he had a personality ribald enough to make up for his physical ugliness, but what he revealed is that he would attack an accomplished, nice young woman, who happens to not think that childbirth is the only healthy use for her body. He did it with pretty ugly, judgmental, and, yes, anachronistically condescending, sexist words.
A bunch of people thought to themselves, how much uglier is the thought of that Walking Pimple having sex with underage women in the Dominican Republic?
Pretty ugly, seeing as those details of his Asshole's life are not ones that he cares to expound upon publicly. At least, not with the same glee that he does when pronouncing on the proposed sex life of a Georgetown law student.
Anyone else can draw the connection here. But you numbskulls have been listening to, and defending that scumbag for way too long.
You've become desensitized to how fucked-up he is.
Deal with it.
Saint Croix said...
“He did not say she slept around. There was no implication of that. I don't think he used the word "slut" or "whore."
Here’s what was stated by Limbaugh on Wednesday:
"What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's 'round heeled.' I take it back."
He used the words "slut" and "prostitute".
what is the truth? Knowing that - and sticking to it - is all that'll save what we have.
For some young person, someone who's struggling to work this stuff out or who's wondering what is what, just my two cents that kind of statement is really irresponsible, and leads to all kinds of aberrant thinking and behaviors if you take it literally.
Definitely there are sounder points of view. Test it. Test them all.
Earlier I said Rush should have apologized. I've changed my mind. I laughed when Rush said what he said. It was funny. It was deserved. This Fluke person deserves to be mocked. She's a walking joke. If what she said isn't absurd and self-righteous there isn't any such thing as absurd self-righteousness. She's her own comedy writer.
Rush was forced to apologize by whatever influences him. He should never have done it. Crack has made me realize that much. If you're going to be absurd in exposing the absurd apologizing is fatal.
Clearly St. Croix and a few others are still stuck in "damage-control" mode, and trying to micromanage the fall-out from El Rushboner's massive fuck-up.
Just get it all out, guys. Repeat after me: Rush Limblob is an incorrigible, recidivist scumbag. He has no principles in deciding whom or what he will try to destroy as long as it furthers his power as the de facto leader of the conservative movement.
This makes him a tool, rather than a person. A person has personal convictions. But Limblob is the cog coordinating the wheel of the Republican machine. And a previously successful one. He is the movement, or so he believes. He has foresaken humanity in exchange for identification with a movement.
As such, it is not within his power to have such a thing as personal conviction.
If you're going to be absurd in exposing the absurd apologizing is fatal.
The answer of course is obvious. It's not true that Rush was being absurd.
phx,
Definitely there are sounder points of view. Test it. Test them all.
Sounder than the truth? Riiiight. Testing those other "points of view" is what got us into this. There is no other point of view. There is the truth and those trying to deceive, nothing more.
You are lost.
Frankly I would still defend Rush Limbaugh because he is right. But I suppose that he's wrung every last drop of utility of this so here is an apology just as sincere as Ed Shultz's apology to Laura Ingraham.
But what I found amusing was that the media is already starting to reposition this. Tonight on AM 700 radio a brief news snippet announced, to my complete surprise, that Ms. Fluke was advocating the government mandate for female contraception as a means of treating --cancer--.
Cancer?
No mention of sex at all. Treating cancer.
So perhaps this soap opera isn't done quite yet.
Breast pumps are way down on the list.
Amen.
But that's what our current president wants to make sure we all must legally carry insurance for.
That's what our current administration thinks we should all pay our own money to cover.
You know why? Because he can.
You know why else? Because it gets him money for reelection.
So if you think the world needs America, maybe you should think about what American citizens living domestically are being put through right now.
For the first time ever, our government is telling us we must buy a product with our own money.
For the first time ever, our government is deciding that we will be breaking the law if we do have insurance that covers whatever it is their donors want.
If you don't think that is going to change our relationship with our government, I don't know what will. It will....fundamentally transform America.
So yeah, it's kind of a big deal.
I don't understand why you want to make it about medicine for ovarian cysts. Don't worry. That's covered.
With a name of Sandra Fluke, the story has staying power!
Months from now, you'll be able to recall her name. Or you'll say "Flake." But the details will be there. And, the republicans have LOST WOMEN VOTERS!
You went to Utah for a conference - good for you. You want to tell me, now, about France based on your two week trip to Paris?
-------------
Hey don't poo poo my conference. Now I believe what my friend told me -- he happens to be a brown skinned guy and of a very different religion than those Mormons, and has lived there for more than two decades. He didn't have any complaints about how they treated him.
Some 90+% blacks voted for Obama, most of all because he was black. Now are we going to criticize them?
All these conservatives are flocking to Santorum because of his chest thumping religion-based applause lines. The guy is a small time crook feeding off of big government trough. Name one thing he has accomplished in terms of policy that made society better? At least Romney shows up as a successful businessman who made money for himself and for others.
Ritmo,
What I don’t understand is since it takes two to tango, why isn’t Limbaugh slamming all the men who want to have sex with this woman? If men where not trying to screw her, she wouldn’t need birth control, right?
Like someone once said, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
Sounder than the truth? Riiiight.
No. Sounder than what you say is the truth.
You know, if you just do the math!
Obama has months, ahead, where government numbers will be looking better. By November the economy will be a democratic machine, sucking votes from the republican party.
Then, you add in what Mitt's spent. In the tens of millions! For what? To "win" any of the 22 debates? What a circus. What a show!
And, Obama? Didn't have to spend any money from his re-election horde.
What I don’t understand is since it takes two to tango, why isn’t Limbaugh slamming all the men who want to have sex with this woman?
Because he's a sexist pig.
That's not a phrase you've ever heard me say before, and I'll probably never say again. But here, it's as apt as apt can be.
Of course, "feminism" has committed its own excesses. Not as severe as tiny-dick-fat-man imagines. Anything not "humanist" can be divisive and too interested in power for its own sake.
But Limblob regularly goes way beyond any call for "balance". Balance would not leave him with preponderant power. He thrives off an unbalanced and unhinged perspective; He is simply incapable of putting himself in anyone else's shoes. (Maybe because they don't come big enough for clown size).
But the point here is that Republicans have come to loathe the idea of empathizing with anyone who doesn't fall in line with their rote interest groups. And this time they went too far and showed how outrageous they'd go in finding a way to offend.
Buh-bye. Alex had it right.
Because he's a sexist pig.
That's not a phrase you've ever heard me say before, and I'll probably never say again. But here, it's as apt as apt can be.
###########################
If you say sexist pig here because it is deserved, why would you not say it elsewhere it is deserved?
I'm just curious.
Here's a new lesson for ya:
Sandra Fluke mentioned that the birth control pill is also a tool used to fight cancer. TRUE.
Just like Thalidomide got a bad name. But it's a drug that has many purposes lay people will never understand.
While the social conservatives never even realized they were playing with fire! As if Americans would embrace PROHIBITIONS. WON'T.
If Anything, Americans will embrace the legalization of drugs, first.
Imagine no religion.
It's easy if you're a Democrat.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
“But the point here is that Republicans have come to loathe the idea of empathizing with anyone who doesn't fall in line with their rote interest groups. And this time they went too far and showed how outrageous they'd go in finding a way to offend.”
That be true. I read that the CEO of Carbonite decided to pull his company’s ads even after Limbaugh apologized, not that it was really much of an apology after three days of attacks.
'He used the words "slut" and "prostitute".
OH NOES!!!!!111!! He said this about a liberal No, this can not stand. This word is only to be used when referring to a woman who has wandered off the leftist plantation. This is a SCANDAL. We must shut him up. He said words. Yikes!
I thought Santorum brought up a useful point in saying that 'contraceptives harmed women,' at least in retrospect to give respect to those women who didn't become like the 'five easy pieces' of the book of the same name. Rush may have been trying to follow up on that point and Sandra was being more a 'useful idiot' in standing in the way.
Through the long night, the comments go on. Who knew that freebie birth control pills for law students was such a hot button issue?
pm317,
Hey don't poo poo my conference. Now I believe what my friend told me -- he happens to be a brown skinned guy and of a very different religion than those Mormons, and has lived there for more than two decades. He didn't have any complaints about how they treated him.
It's still not a dissertation on what goes on there.
Some 90+% blacks voted for Obama, most of all because he was black. Now are we going to criticize them?
I have - do it all the time. Blacks have always been hurt more by Obama than anyone else, so why wouldn't I?
All these conservatives are flocking to Santorum because of his chest thumping religion-based applause lines. The guy is a small time crook feeding off of big government trough. Name one thing he has accomplished in terms of policy that made society better? At least Romney shows up as a successful businessman who made money for himself and for others.
No, they're flocking to Santorum because he doesn't lie about who he is. I'm an atheist - his religious convictions are important to me but not as a follower. As long as he stays in the mainstream of American thought - not "progressive" American thought - I'll vote for him and do so happily. I keep telling you the presidency isn't just about the economy. The economy will improve as soon as Obama is gone. Anybody can make that happen. But how we got into this? Who's going to deal with that? Romney? He can't even tell the truth about Joseph Fucking Smith and that's a history of fraud that's easily verifiable. We don't need any more fraud and putting a member of his "church" in power definitely doesn't stop it. It just revalidates it. We well NEVER get out of this trap we're in that way. Fraud has become a way of life in this country and it has to stop.
I'll gladly take Santorum to make that happen.
No, her guy mittens lost to another weak, flip/flopping RINO McCain, which she was not enamored with. ;) So by process of elimination she went w/Obama over McCain.
Yeah, and we see how that worked out. Like I said, if you follow the Althorse on matters of elections, it's the blonde leading the blonde.
Anita said...
“OH NOES!!!!!111!! He said this about a liberal No, this can not stand. This word is only to be used when referring to a woman who has wandered off the leftist plantation. This is a SCANDAL. We must shut him up. He said words. Yikes!”
Anita,
So what are you saying? You want the right to behave the same way as some on the left? How about we try to elevate the level of public discourse in this country?
Carol_Herman,
The republicans have LOST WOMEN VOTERS!
Oh, give it a break, Carol. Your choice is between us or continuing with more spending, higher gas prices, etc., plus not all women are upset, so get off it.
That bullshit won't work any longer.
If you say sexist pig here because it is deserved, why would you not say it elsewhere it is deserved?
I'm just curious.
Because I think it's (generally) over-used and unnecessarily shrill.
Except in this instance. If ever there was a person and a behavior for which that term could be invented and applied, it was to him, now.
I think the way women think of their opportunities and how they are treated in the world often has to do with the messages they internalize as kids, in their own families. They project those personal experiences onto the challenges they face as adults in the world of work and (sometimes) politics.
I think in my family, women accomplished more, at an earlier stage, than in some families. So I erroneously guessed, as a young adult, that what a lot of what women objected to vis a vis sexism might have often resulted from their own family experiences.
And then I realized just how many people not only listen to and cheer on Limblob, but identify with his worldview.
But now he got his, and in a way that should reflect a more enduring defeat for what he represents in terms of gender norms. And hopefully in many other ways, too.
May the memorable example he made of his fool self live long and endure powerfully. Because such a powerful scumbag as he deserves no less.
Limbaugh is not very sophisticated about women. He must actually see heterosexual women who have practiced sex until they understand it and can do it right as a threat to him.
That only exposed his own shortcomings.
But Limbaugh is not the man that the GOP wants to be its image of the strong guardian type man who will give himself for his family, his woman, his female children and his country.
Limbaugh has totally lost it. And the Dems will gleefully hang Limbaugh around the neck of every GOP candidate in America for the next 10 years.
What I don’t understand is since it takes two to tango, why isn’t Limbaugh slamming all the men who want to have sex with this woman?
Actually, he did mention something to the effect that since she said that she was having SO MUCH SEX, it was costing her $3000 a year, why weren't some of her men paying their fair share of the cost of Ms. Flake's *ahem* favors.
Anyway, you'd thing that the least they could do was leave a little something under her pillow before taking their leave.
Men are such pigs.
"Slut is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice these days.
Looter is the lifestyle choice that's still deprecated.
Rush was picking the more charitable."
:-). True, brilliant.
The girl is lying. The affair is a diversionary attack, to prevent meeting the encircling forces punishing white people and USA generally by induced inflation and color-preferenced foreign and domestic imperialisms.
I heard Rush on this as he spoke it. He was laughing, called the situation hilarious. He was right. He hasn't apologized. Even Meadhouse walked into the trap of taking this seriously. The whole thing's a rip based on lies and absurdity. "Hilarious" as Rush called it.
One should not be fearful of the Liar-in-Chief continuing to occupy the WH.
Fraud has become a way of life in this country and it has to stop.
I'll gladly take Santorum to make that happen.
--------------
Crack, speaking of fraud, did you read about how Santorum lives in VA and not in PA and poured money into some cyber charter school across the border in PA and let PA tax payers foot the bill for his kids going to that school even when he didn't live in that state but in VA? Yeah, small time crook because he couldn't make it big like Romney either.
Has anyone ever encountered a female lawyer with a rampant id? Not likely. Lawyerettes are more apt to be afflicted with an impacted superego....I'm not defending Limbaugh's choice of words, but I think many here are missing his humor. He called her slut in the way that fat people are called "Tiny" and tall people are called "Shorty". This woman has an agenda, and it is not wanton sex.
Here's you coveted women's vote, Carol:
Study: One third of young women would trade intelligence for bigger breasts
Which means one third don't have brains to begin with.
And, somehow, you think there aren't women who notice and cringe?
You're delusional,...
Oh, give it a break, Carol. Your choice is between us or continuing with more spending, higher gas prices, etc., plus not all women are upset, so get off it.
That bullshit won't work any longer.
The isolation behind this message reflects a desperation befitting no one less correct in her political judgment than Marie Antionette.
People want to be thought of as human, first. You can buy them off with fuel subsidies for only so long. At the end of the day, "I pay for you so shut your mouth" is the kind of condescending bullshit that slaves had to put up with.
No one's dignity can be purchased.
But why am I bothering with this? I'm sure you'll tell me about the one and only broken relationship you've had years ago, the one that represents your sum total of your experience with women, and try to convince me that your pain at the hands of a couple psychotic women justifies your inability to see any of them in terms that don't stoke fear and loathing.
Heal your "cracked" self-esteem, dude.
Or maybe just let me buy you some gasoline, since you seem to think that will do the trick.
pm317,
Yeah, small time crook because he couldn't make it big like Romney either.
That's my choice? Small time crook vs. big time fraud with a cult?
Are you secretly working for Santorum or something?
REDDIT's top post (Saturday night) is that CARBONITE is dropping out as an advertiser on Limbaugh's show, even following his apologizing for his crude remarks about Sandra Flake.
Why?
Because the company took a "shitstorm" of a hit fielding an enormous number of angry callers.
Why did Carbonite advertise on Limbaugh's show? Because it caters to an older audience. One that Carbonite wanted to reach as one of its sales tools.
Since this is up at REDDIT, the demographic breaks towards younger folk.
How did I hear of REDDIT? From my son. Who told me he goes there a lot, during the day. This demographic isn't in Romney's corner, either.
He hasn't apologized.
That's as funny as "It's a metaphor."
Anita said...
“Actually, he did mention something to the effect that since she said that she was having SO MUCH SEX, it was costing her $3000 a year, why weren't some of her men paying their fair share of the cost of Ms. Flake's *ahem* favors.
Anyway, you'd thing that the least they could do was leave a little something under her pillow before taking their leave.”
If they had developed cheap and effective birth control for men instead of women, I wonder how this current issue would have played out? I have to believe it would probably have been a non-issue.
The video comment is going to linger.
And linger.
And linger.
And linger.
Dirty old man is hard to lose.
Words are forgotten, but the court of public opinion is generally harsh on lecherous old men.
Apparently he's quite familiar with sex videos of young women ...
Limbaugh is not very sophisticated about women.
Lol. Ya think?
Understatement of the year.
The Crack Emcee said...
----------
I never said 'big time fraud'.
For an atheist you sure are supporting a guy who wears religion on his sleeve and wipes his whiny face with it every little chance he gets.
Well, Crack, the winning candidate needs to get a little over 50% of the vote. Women voters count! When it's close, it pays not to defranchise women. They got defranchised by Rush by his inappropriate crack about "sluts and prostitutes."
What happened after Rush said it? The words went viral. Way beyond his usual audience.
Apparently he's quite familiar with sex videos of young women
What the fuck does this even mean? Are you suggesting that Rush Limbaugh may have viewed pron on the Internet
Fucking really? No way! Next thing you'll be telling us Rush Limbaugh has masturbated.
The leftist morals police are too fucking funny. You crack me up, dude. Next time you are beating off, I want you to make sure to think of me. Think of my blue mask. I know you will. Have fun.
Sure, let's NOT know what's going on and think we'll succeed.
Great plan, phx, just fucking brilliant.
Crack Emcee with his own cult. His cult of one. But, his is Truth.
Carol_Herman,
REDDIT's top post (Saturday night) is that CARBONITE is dropping out as an advertiser on Limbaugh's show, even following his apologizing for his crude remarks about Sandra Flake.
Old news.
Why?
Because the company took a "shitstorm" of a hit fielding an enormous number of angry callers.
Why did Carbonite advertise on Limbaugh's show? Because it caters to an older audience. One that Carbonite wanted to reach as one of its sales tools.
Big deal - he's Rush - he could've dropped them easily.
Since this is up at REDDIT, the demographic breaks towards younger folk.
Are you going to tell me something I don't know?
How did I hear of REDDIT? From my son. Who told me he goes there a lot, during the day. This demographic isn't in Romney's corner, either.
NEWS FLASH: Occupy protesters not voting Republican. News at 11.
Quick, Carol, go ask your kid what happens next!
I'm not bellyaching about ideological purity, I'm talking about THE TRUTH! Don't any of you give a damn about that anymore? Fuck Left or Right, what is the truth? Knowing that - and sticking to it - is all that'll save what we have. Rush's departure from it (out of expediency) is a "tell" - both sides have now gone over to the dark side. We're finally, totally, on our own. So either we demand he step up - or we get rid of the entire ruling class, period, and start again. Or we prepare for war - against ourselves - winner take all.
The truth will win out - we, as people, have already lost.
- Crack Emcee
Crack is right. I'm buying a handgun on Monday!
pm317,
I never said 'big time fraud'.
No, I said that. You obviously can't spot one.
For an atheist you sure are supporting a guy who wears religion on his sleeve and wipes his whiny face with it every little chance he gets.
Yeah, the word is "atheist," not "bigot."
Apparently there's no P.R. disaster in the world of political movements too immense for a little masked guy to refrain from trying to litigate.
He brings new meaning to the word "scrappy".
Ritmo -- You think about me when you are masturbating, too. Right now would be good. Then, go to some other website and tell the people there how I am so awesome. Like that one time you did before.
Make me proud again, son.
Fucking really? No way! Next thing you'll be telling us Rush Limbaugh has masturbated.
Now there's a disgusting visual.
This coming from the guy who says that morals are a matter of taste...
Carol_Herman,
Well, Crack, the winning candidate needs to get a little over 50% of the vote. Women voters count!
I know that, but they don't vote as a block, as you implied.
When it's close, it pays not to defranchise women. They got defranchised by Rush by his inappropriate crack about "sluts and prostitutes."
two things:
1) It's not going to be close. 2) The women who got mad are the kind of women who get mad. Ann didn't seem to like it and what is she? A feminist, so it figures. Conservatives are women, too, y'know.
What happened after Rush said it? The words went viral. Way beyond his usual audience.
That's called the media, so what else is new?
You think about me when you are masturbating, too. Right now would be good. Then, go to some other website and tell the people there how I am so awesome. Like that one time you did before.
Make me proud again, son.
Other than trying to prove that you are as vile as the subject of this thread, exactly what are you trying to accomplish with this dreck?
You think about me when you are masturbating, too. Right now would be good. Then, go to some other website and tell the people there how I am so awesome. Like that one time you did before.
There's another one who comes on here saying really disturbing things to certain individuals.
this dreck
I'm trying to offend the leftist morality police, which I see I have done, greatly, which is fucking fabulous.
You prudish fucks need to go to Tehran where you can be useful morality police officers. Meanwhile, my goal is to try to come in some woman who has to pay for birth control at a Jesuit law school. If that doesn't work, I will try to come on some woman who has to pay for birth control at a Jesuit law school.
Do I get another citation?
You're turning me on, Seven...
Crack, "blocks" are counted. Why? Because they trend. And, you can figure them out.
The conservatives of America have been playing with the republican primary system.
Be my guest. If you think this is a winning agenda, keep the faith.
I see that Obama always seems to have had high popularity numbers, even when people hated the direction he took on advancing his party's agenda.
Back in 1992, when Bill Clinton was running, Carville had a sign printed: IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID
And, Bill Clinton won because he stayed focused.
The elder Bush lost. Probably because Ross Perot came into the race, and took 19%.
Heck, if you go back and look at the Reformer Teddy Roosevelt; who was HATED by the GOP insiders. And, was actually "sidelined" into the vice presidency ... when McKinnley got shot ... Also served one term of his own. And, turned the reins over to Taft.
Teddy Roosevelt saw Taft destroying his REFORMER's agenda. And, he came out fighting. Taft was due for re-election; when Teddy Roosevelt went to the GOP convention, and demanded that Taft step down.
Taft didn't.
The Moose Party was born. Wilson (the democrat) WON. And, Teddy Roosevelt came in 2nd.
We're having a race, ahead. No one can read the future. Lots of stuff can happen. But what if the republican nominee comes in 3rd?
In 2016, do you think the social conservatives will be given a front row seat during the primaries? Or will we see "rules" changing, ahead?
Do I get another citation?
For telling me to think of you, masturbate, and then calling me "son"?
I think that sort of crap gets you a special place at the top of the local sex offender list, actually. Nothing sectarian or partisan about it.
"Limbaugh is not very sophisticated about women."
By wife #5 or #6 he should have figured it out ... hopefully.
Practice ~ practice ~ practice!
You're turning me on, Seven...
He's off his fucking meds and making me really uncomfortable with his spew.
Crack, I'm the one who loves to go to REDDIT! But I wouldn't have found it on my own.
All other threads, I found on my own.
And, believe it or not, I do ask my kid about his political choices.
People make different choices.
In the "big" mix it doesn't matter. An individual vote isn't gonna give you any indication on who is going to win the race.
At REDDIT, where I read the comments under the CARBONITE site ... (a product I have never heard of) ... There's a big post by someone who works at the company. And, it describes the SHITSTORM that hit the "switchboard."
Is "switchboard" still a term in use?
If they had developed cheap and effective birth control for men instead of women, I wonder how this current issue would have played out? I have to believe it would probably have been a non-issue.
You can get BCPs at Target for as little as $9 a month. That's cheap (and effective).
As for men - condoms aren't that expensive. You can even have them delivered via Amazon.
There are apps for finding free concoms in NYC and DC (but obviously someone has to pay for them.
And libs wouldn't ever seize upon this issue if it could possibly mean free stuff for men. Women are the politically correct victim group they cater for.
That's why breast cancer is such a popular cause. It's obviously something which benefits women the most.
Here's what I predict will happen with this:
1) no change in unplanned pregnancy rate.
2)Increase in VD rate as men, knowing that their gf's BCPs are now paid for by other people, put pressure on them to use the free stuff rather than pay for a condom.
Besides, you know it's like showering in a rain coat. LOL
Limbaugh was a complete idiot to say what he said, for political reasons precisely because it was red meat for the leftist morality police, as we can see here.
Tell us, though, leftist morality police officers. I put it to you, leftist morality police: if there's nothing wrong with a law student at a Jesuit university complaining about having to worry about getting come all up in her and having to pay for contraception, why is it wrong for me to talk about that come all up in her? Isn't that the nut of the issue?
They should actually study that, shouldn't they? Get some actual data, instead of just relying on someone's - valueless - opinion.
Sweetheart, girls like the Georgetown Law Kardashian who are having SO MUCH SEX that it costs them $3000 a year, have yet to be given their free BCPs, so we can hardly "get" some actual data to compare to the horror that is the present. - where poor, waif-eyed (and bowlegged) Georgtown Law lawyerettes are having to do without a manicure because they have to pay for their own contraceptives.
We would need to wait a statistically significant amount of time after these brave, suffering girls have started getting contraceptives subsidized in part by the poor and middle class in the form of higher insurance premiums. Then we can legitimately compare the unplanned pregnancy rates and the VD infection rates of the bad old days vs the freebie days.
Anita,
The issue is not about women being able to go to a drug store and buy BC pills, but about insurance to cover BC pills. Also, the pill (if taken properly) provides better pregnancy protection than condoms. There is also the sensitivity issue for men.
As far as libs not seizing upon this issue if it could possibly mean free stuff for men, again, I don’t believe it would be an issue. As was the case for Viagra which within weeks of hitting the U.S. market in 1998 was covered by health insurance plans, I think BC pills for men would be covered.
As far as breast cancer being a popular cause with women, that’s because that disease kills and disfigures thousands of women each year. Over 230,000 women where diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2011 and over 39,000 died from the disease. How many men have died from erectile dysfunction or in child birth for that matter? And yet, erectile dysfunction medication is covered by insurance plans.
“Here's what I predict will happen with this:
1) no change in unplanned pregnancy rate.”
Thus article states otherwise:
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-women/2009/10/14/abortion-down-contraception-up-recipe-for-health-reform
From the article:
“Global abortion rates are down - from an estimated 45.5 million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003…A key reason for that drop was that the proportion of married women using contraception worldwide increased from 54 percent in 1990 to 63 percent in 2003 as pregnancy prevention methods became more available and socially acceptable."
“2)Increase in VD rate as men, knowing that their gf's BCPs are now paid for by other people, put pressure on them to use the free stuff rather than pay for a condom.”
Possibly.
why is it wrong for me to talk about that come all up in her?
Reminds me of a limerick:
"There once was a wh*re named Maureen.....
Here's a crazy idea: if institutions including insurance institutions and Jesuit institutions want to subsidize hard ons and birth control, or hard ons or birth control, or neither, that is wholly and completely their decisions.
Tell us, leftist morality police: why is that a bad? Tell us further why you believe you have a winning election issue here.
I'll be waiting here for an answer until you prudes arrest me for language that offends your tolerant sensibilities.
The right to privacy seems rightful when it covers all issues of birth control between a woman's doctor and the woman. There is no Baby that has rights to protect there...right?
The contraceptive door must remain closed.
But when Obama went to the mat with the Catholic Bishops, he tempted the old fool Limbaugh to Rush in that door where angels fear to tread. With little to win, he plunged ahead gave Obama a big win without firing a shot.
What was Limbaugh thinking?
Conservative men have never wanted Sex Panels regulating our sex practices...do we?
The Conservatives'next move had better be a clear pro birth control position expressed without fear of the Catholic Bishops, who are Dems anyway.
And Hi to Ritmo. I always enjoy your talents. Is "Limblow" copyrighted?
"What was Limbaugh thinking?"
Rhetorical? :-P
“Global abortion rates are down - from an estimated 45.5 million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003…A key reason for that drop was that the proportion of married women using contraception worldwide increased from 54 percent in 1990 to 63 percent in 2003 as pregnancy prevention methods became more available and socially acceptable."
I'm talking about the unplanned pregnancy rates here. The US is the country where Georgetown Law Kardashians suffer because other people won't pay for their BCPs. The US is where President Downgrade was so generous he forced others to foot the bill for Ms Fluke's BCPs.
Seriously, since we're talking about the US, we must compare the rates in the US before and after the welfare program starts doling out the feebies.
I think that since this is basically a made up hardship, and the vast majority of people have access to relatively cheap and reliable birth control, you won't see a statistically significant change in the unplanned pregnancy rate.
In other words, women are still going to get knocked up because they forgot to take their pill, only in the future they will forget to take their "free" pill as opposed to forgetting to take the pill they paid for.
This is just so sad: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/327183.php
Haven't read the comments but I hope somebody picked up on the obvious: she is a LAW student. Lawyers fuck people. That is their sole reason to be. They FUCK people. All her fucking expenses should be included in her tuition.
Anita said...
“I'm talking about the unplanned pregnancy rates here. The US is the country where Georgetown Law Kardashians suffer because other people won't pay for their BCPs. The US is where President Downgrade was so generous he forced others to foot the bill for Ms Fluke's BCPs.”
Seriously, since we're talking about the US, we must compare the rates in the US before and after the welfare program starts doling out the feebies.
I think that since this is basically a made up hardship, and the vast majority of people have access to relatively cheap and reliable birth control, you won't see a statistically significant change in the unplanned pregnancy rate.
In other words, women are still going to get knocked up because they forgot to take their pill, only in the future they will forget to take their "free" pill as opposed to forgetting to take the pill they paid for.”
I used that article about the decrease in pregnancy rates to highlight the effect of women using contraceptives. If more women decided to use contraceptives because of insurance coverage then I would expect a decrease in the rate of unplanned pregnancies.
But again, if this was an issue about BC pills for men, I think they would be covered.
The leftist morality police believes -- sincerely believe -- that not having enough money free stuff is always the problem. That and hate speech. Hateful speech is beyond the pale. And, of course, speech about come.
I used that article about the decrease in pregnancy rates to highlight the effect of women using contraceptives. If more women decided to use contraceptives because of insurance coverage then I would expect a decrease in the rate of unplanned pregnancies.
But again, if this was an issue about BC pills for men, I think they would be covered.
And my point is that in this country birth control is already relatively cheap and very, very available (unlike some third world countries). BECAUSE of this, mandating that other people provide all women BCPs won't change the unplanned pregnancy rate. Those that are going to use birth control already do.
In fact, one of the "facts" leftists like to shriek about is the "fact" that 98% of Catholic women use birth control. Not all Catholics are wealthy, that's for sure, yet 98% of them already use birth control. So why do we have to give them free birth control?
If some poor, immigrant Catholic woman can manage to get birth control, why can't this upper middle class white lady from Georgetown Law?
What forms of birth control for men are covered? The only one I can think of is a vasectomy - some ins. companies cover them I suppose, others don't.
Anita,
Again, I’m referring to the situation where they had developed cheap and effective birth control for men instead of women. In that case, I believe this whole situation concerning insurance coverage for birth control would probably have been a non-issue.
Very few men will not take birth control pills. This is well documented, and it's the reason that birth control pills for males are not widely available. Nobody wants them.
Oval bowling balls and vomit soup are not widely available, either.
Yet another leftist who does not understand supply and demand.
Again, I’m referring to the situation where they had developed cheap and effective birth control for men instead of women. In that case, I believe this whole situation concerning insurance coverage for birth control would probably have been a non-issue.
Based on what? I expect that if we had cheap and effective birth control for men, some insurance companies would choose to cover it, and some would not. Kinda like BCPs.
Waaaaait a minute - we already have cheap and effective birth control for men. It's called a CONDOM. And, unlike BCPs, it protected against sexually transmitted diseases.
So, you're telling me that insurance companies cover condoms? Who knew?
Very few men will take birth control pills. Men don't want to use them. Please excuse the extraneous not.
Very few men will take birth control pills
Some female impersonaters take them. They soften male secondary sexual characteristics.
Insurance companies should be forced to provide them to men for free. Some men need them and they're having to go without, which makes them sad.
THey are also forced to get them on the black market now, which makes them embarassed. It's so sad. *sob*
Some female impersonaters take them. They soften male secondary sexual characteristics.
So it's a tranny issue? I had no idea. We all know how important the right to sexual expression for trannies is to the leftist moral police. Maybe forcing insurance companies and Catholic schools to provide male birth control pills will happen after all.
Anita said...
“Based on what? I expect that if we had cheap and effective birth control for men, some insurance companies would choose to cover it, and some would not. Kinda like BCPs.
Waaaaait a minute - we already have cheap and effective birth control for men. It's called a CONDOM. And, unlike BCPs, it protected against sexually transmitted diseases.
Anita,
Condoms have been around since at least the 15th century. If they are so effective why the need for birth control for women?
As far as why I think insurance for birth control for men wouldn’t be an issue, just look how women have been treated in the past and even today. Who typically calls the shots in society?
Who typically calls the shots in society?
People with power, like Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, Oprah Winfrey, Meg Whitman, Nikki Haley, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the list goes on.
Try, just a little bit, to be less of a moron. Okay? Thanks.
Condoms have been around since at least the 15th century. If they are so effective why the need for birth control for women?
As far as why I think insurance for birth control for men wouldn’t be an issue, just look how women have been treated in the past and even today. Who typically calls the shots in society?
You're saying condoms are not safe and effective? Yes,condoms have been around for a while (there's a reason for that). And with modern materials they're even more safe, effective and inexpensive than ever. Used correctly, they have a very low failure rate. So by your logic, we DON'T need BCPs.
Condoms are actually better than BCPs - they're not a drug, they also protect against sexually transmitted diseases.
So why bother with BCPs?
Actually, I think most public health officials would rather have everyone using condoms correctly and every time they have sex, rather than birth control pills (if they could wave their magic wands).
And, of course, with gay men, BCPs don't help much. LOL
Condoms are cheap and effective methods of birth control for men. The fact that they've been around a long time is a moot point. Based on what you stated as fact: that insurance companies would cover birth control if it was for men, indicates that those companies must cover condoms.
But they don't.
The reasons that President Downgrade has ordered private companies to give away things for free to people who can afford to pay for them are three-fold:
1. Those items conflict with a politically incorrect religous group's beliefs. Ultimately, religions interfere with the primacy of the state. Collectivists hate that. Religions must be shown who's boss.
2. He can bestow a gift upon a politically favored group: women. In the narrative (which you parrot) women are official victims. BCPs are for women. And if you're against giving these away to women for free, you must be a sexist.
3)This is part of a strategy to drive private insurance out of business. Force them to pay for things which are costly because they are used by a large segment of the popultion and then regulate how much they can charge for their product. Drive their profit margin into negative territory and then the gov't can step in and voila: single payer system through the back door.
Oh, and BTW 36fsfiend, some insurance companies already cover BCPs for contraceptive purposes. Mine does.
But they don't cover condoms.
Let's review: My insurance covers contraceptives for women, but not for men.
Sooo why shouldn't the men who have SO MUCH SEX that they have to spend lots of $ on condoms get to have someone else pay for them?
Anita,
Actually, condoms are not as effective as the pill. Out of every hundred women whose partners use condoms perfectly for a year, two to five will become pregnant, compared to about one in two hundred women who take the pill perfectly. That’s one reason for the development of the pill. Another is the desire of women to control their own bodies particularly when abortion was illegal.
Again, as far as why I think insurance for birth control for men wouldn’t be an issue, think about how many women bishops there are in the Catholic Church or who typically is in charge of religious organizations in this country.
Sex and birth have been inexorably tied to religions over the ages which have been continuously controlled by men.
in the Catholic church, the only method of birth control ok'd is NFP. That's it.
The Church frowns upon male birth control as well as female.
So please don't keep dragging the goal posts around.
YOU stated that if they had developed cheap and effective birth control for men this wouldn't be an issue and insurance companies would happily pay.
I said we do have cheap and effective birth control for men : condoms, which, if used correctly also prevent sexually transmitted diseases, which the sainted BCPs do not.
Yet insurance companies do NOT cover them.
They are quite effective as a means of birth control, with the extra added bonus that she can't get away with telling you "it's ok, I'm on the pill", when she's not. LOL (And I know several men who insist on using condoms because of this - they don't want to get trapped)
We're not arguing whether or not we should have BCPs or any other form or birth control method developed - the more the merrier.
Condoms are an effective form of birth control for MEN. If condoms were ineffective, then we'd be advised that we should avoid them. I don't know of any other form of birth control that men can practice, other than abstinence. Yet women have multiple forms of birth control they can use. Hmmmm.
Condoms, the only form of male birth control, are not covered by insurance companies and President Downgrade has not ordered someone else to pay for men to obtain them.
BCPs, one of several kinds of birth control available to women, which are covered for use as contraceptives by some, but not all, insurance companies, are what the president chose to order to be given away for free. Precisely because they are something for one of his politically correct constituencies, and because a religous group has issues with birth control in general.
And then he and his friends in the media frame the issue as "Republicans are trying to ban contraceptives. They hate WOMEN."
I repeat, contraceptives, for both men and women are relatively cheap, and readily available in this country and if they are made available for free (to women only, of course), the unplanned pregnancy rate in this country will not change in a statistically significant way because those women who want to practice birth control are.
I would postulate
an increase in sexually transmitted diseases though, because some couples may switch to the "free" birth control (female birth control) rather than the kind you have to pay for (male birth control) which also protects against STDs.
But the Georgetown Law Kardashian will get free birth control, while the poor man who cuts the lawn on the lovely Georgetown campus will not.
SHE can be in charge of her sexuality for free, while HE has to pay to be in charge of his.
Fight the patriarchy
Anita,
I’m not dragging the goal posts around. My point is if more women had been leaders in the church during its history, then I believe some of these women related issues would not be a factor today. The fact that Sister Carol Keehan, the CEO of the Catholic Health Association which runs more than 600 hospitals and 1,400 long-term care and other health facilities in the country, has come out in favor of the insurance plan for contraceptives supports this position. And if there had been women bishops, birth control may have actually been accepted in the church when it was almost accepted by the male bishops in 1968.
Again, condoms are not as effective as the pill as far as preventing pregnancies. And if more women throughout the past had held positions of authority and influence in both religious and political organizations then women’s health issues such as contraception would be fully accepted today. I’m mean women didn’t even have the right to vote until over 100 years had passed from the founding of this country.
As far as the issue of the mandate for contraceptives, if a majority of people support the idea, which polls seem to indicate, then why shouldn’t it be put into effect? Women are not being given free contraceptives. They are paying for them through their insurance premiums.
Now that she and many like her have checked that box and are validated non-racists, they can vote against him...maybe.
Bagoh, that may be the edgiest thing I've seen you write since I've started reading this blog. I like it.
RUSH1: "What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right?"
RUSH2: "I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke."
There are only three things wrong with Statement 2:
First, I'm not sure Rush understands exactly what the word "analogy" means. My calling you a bitch -- or a slut -- is not analogizing your activities to those of a bitch. I'm saying you're a bitch.
Second, I'm not sure Rush understands exactly what the word "personal" means -- otherwise who is the "her" in "it makes HER a slut"? And what aspects of 'her" is she talking about, if not her personal moral character?
Third, I'm not sure Rush understands exactly what the word "mean" means. Everything from his follow-up, double-down comments were expressions of these same ideas and elaborations on those initial intentions. It's the kind of language a person uses to elaborate and explain his meaning.
***
But aside from those problems -- problems with the meanings of "analogy," "personal attack," and "I did not mean" -- the apology seems fine.
Except, perhaps, for its use of the word "apologize."
You lefties go right ahead and hang your Obama hope on the 'slut' call. Its a long time until November and nobody will remember this because the candidates did not say it. Rush said it.
AndyR still won't address the liar woman trying to get free shit for her coochie.
Oh and the faux chivalry bullshit isn't really working.
We know it's all bullshit conveniently pimped for Obama by the lapdog MSM, who are working hand in hand with his campaign to distract people from his horrid record, so you'll run with it.
So, your outrage is laughable, and completely manufactured, considering what Democrat partizans call the GOP everyday.
So, lefties; address her lies to COngress and explain why she shouldn't be held in contempt?
Yea, Peter, so what?
The outrage was fake, so all it deserved was a fake apology.
And if your outrage wasn't fake, why are you so easily manipulated by the Democrats political machine?
36frfiend said: the situation where they had developed cheap and effective birth control for men instead of women. In that case, I believe this whole situation concerning insurance coverage for birth control would probably have been a non-issue.
Anita's doing a bang-up job on this already, but I'd like to add that this whole issue is an issue specifically because the administration, for whatever reasons, decided that females should get special, extra, bonus treatment. Men did not get special extra bonus treatment - there are no extra provisions for any men's health issues that allow prostate exams, vasectomies, condoms, ED treatment, sans co-pay in the bill. It's only a special treatment for women issue.
So, in other words, please stop trying to hide behind my and other women's skirts on this issue. Women get tons of special treatment and free stuff; men are expected to be grown ups and pay their own way. If it were chemical birth control for men, it wouldn't be an issue, because no one would expect it to be free.
Rush occasionally goes off the deep end and deserves criticism when he does – BUT – most of what he says is accurate, timely and extremely helpful to the conservative cause. A mistake every once in awhile, properly apologized for, is easily forgiven and forgotten. I do not demand perfection from pundits.
BTW, there IS an obvious double standard. If the Left does it it’s glossed over, ignored or mindlessly defended. If the Right does it it’s outrageous, evidence of racism, sexism, elitism, etc
Lyssa,
If you don’t understand the background for the administration’s decision for stipulating insurance coverage for certain healthcare services for women, how can you even argue the point properly? Your comment about men not getting insurance coverage for sexually related healthcare is, like with Anita’s comments, missing my point.
You and Anita keep referring to women getting free stuff. Don’t you understand that these women are paying insurance premiums? As I stated up thread, for every $1 of public funds invested in family planning, $4 to $14 of public funds is saved in pregnancy and health care-related costs. It seems that this mandate is attempting to push the cost of family planning back into the private sector by having insurance companies covering the costs instead of the taxpayers. Isn’t that concept in line with the idea of personal responsibility that Limbaugh has been howling about?
I’m not hiding behind any woman’s skirts. I’m supporting efforts to provide them equal access to insurance coverage for medical services that will improve and, in some cases, save their lives. Again, as I stated up thread, within weeks of hitting the U.S. market in 1998, more than half of Viagra prescriptions received health insurance coverage while birth control pills continued not to be covered. Erectile dysfunction doesn't result in death while pregnancy, abortion and child birth can all result in death. So why the issue with not covering contraceptives to help save women’s lives and reduce healthcare costs? That seems both morally and fiscally responsible to me.
Like I’ve stated up thread, if more women had been leaders in the church, other religious organizations and the government throughout history, women’s health matters most likely wouldn’t still be an issue today.
Lyssa,
If you don’t understand the background for the administration’s decision for having insurance cover certain healthcare services for women, how can you even argue the point properly? Your comment about men not getting insurance coverage for sexually related healthcare is, like with Anita’s comments, missing my point.
You and Anita keep referring to women getting free stuff. Don’t you understand that these women are paying insurance premiums? As I stated up thread, for every $1 of public funds invested in family planning, $4 to $14 of public funds is saved in pregnancy and health care-related costs. It seems that this mandate is attempting to push the cost of family planning back into the private sector by having insurance companies covering the costs instead of the taxpayers. Isn’t that concept in line with the idea of personal responsibility that Limbaugh has been howling about?
I’m not hiding behind any woman’s skirts. I’m supporting efforts to provide them equal access to insurance coverage for medical services that will improve and, in some cases, save their lives. Again, as I stated up thread, within weeks of hitting the U.S. market in 1998, more than half of Viagra prescriptions received health insurance coverage while birth control pills continued not to be covered. Erectile dysfunction doesn’t result in death while pregnancy, abortion and child birth can all result in death. So why the issue with not covering contraceptives to help save women’s lives and reduce healthcare costs? That seems both morally and fiscally responsible to me.
Like I’ve stated up thread, if more women had been leaders in the church, other religious organizations and government throughout history, women’s health matters most likely wouldn’t still be an issue today.
You're trying to convince them that life and quality of life are linked, 36. Which, to a Republican, is heresy.
Ritmo said,
"You're trying to convince them that life and quality of life are linked, 36. Which, to a Republican, is heresy."
Ritmo,
I would have thought they'd be on board with the idea of moving costs to the private sector and the concepts of moral and fiscal responsibility.
I always thought these ideas were hallmarks of the Republican Party.
Fluke may not be a slut, but the Dem pols pushing this are pimps trolling her for votes at best, paving the way for further mandates at worst. I said before, when she was excluded from the earlier hearing, that she was better off not leading this charge with such muddled thinkning in her written testimony. But she, and more importantly, all the Dem pols salivating at the prospects of amping up the putative "war on women" meme pushed her out there anyway. A talk radio host plays rough with a willing activist and it warrants a call from the president? Ann notes Romney has better sensitivity instincts than Rush? Yah..duly noted.
Dragging the non contraceptive issues into the discussion is just a poor plan B for promoting a federal mandate for non copay, non means tested contraception, an a voluntary act between two partties, not an affliction.
Ms Althouse. Do you have a link to your blog post of May 23, 2011 with your opinion of Ed Shultz on MSNBC calling talk radio host Laura Ingraham a slut
(I am unable to read most of the word verification characters.) This will be attempt four.. hope it takes
Was talking to my brother about the who Fluke/Limbaugh dustup and he said "gas just went up another 3 cents a gallon this weekend - I'm glad everyone's talking about the important stuff."
Mind you, he runs a plant and is concerned about costs and how they could impact sales, but he just shook his head at the whole Fluke thing.
Regarding Rush's advertisers, there will be plenty of other advertisers that will jump at the chance to get on Rush's show. In the long run, it won't make a bit of difference, but that's OK, as we're so far down the rabbit hole regarding what's what in national politics that the only politics that we really have any impact on is at the local level (village, town, county, state (in some states)).
Alcuria,
If your brother thinks this issue is irrelevant, ask him what he thinks the true cost of establishing federally mandated no copay coverage of contraception is? The true cost will become clearer if that mandate stands and the only "fair" thing to do is to mandate ALL true afflictions and conditions get the same mandated no copay status. But oh...just make the insurance companies pay for it...riiiight.
Not to mention the targeted vote buying aimed at supporting a candidate he's not fond of.
Post a Comment