• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Major Update to OL (please click to open)   02/09/2016

      Sorry for the inconvenience, but we had to update OL and there have been some serious changes made by IPB. The real bad news is that they had to merge User Names and Display Names. This meant that I had to choose between bad and bad. I opted to keep the log-on information the same, so you can get on OL like you always did, but now your User Name is displayed. If your User Name and Display Name were the same, you will not feel the change. If they were different, you are probably irritated right now. I will figure out how you can change this so you can revert to the Display Name you used before if you like, however this may entail a change in how you log-on. The good news is that OL is now searchable from the very beginning. This means all the old posts from the A-Team in Objectivism (and everybody else) will finally show up when you search for something. I will keep changing this announcement as we adapt to these new changes. It's a pain, I know, but after looking around the backend for a bit, I believe the benefits will far, far outweigh the current irritation. They changed things in a hamhanded way and I don't like that, but I can't do anything about it. Benefit-wise, they actually did a good job, so please bear with us. In addition to this change, many good things are coming over time. You are the reason OL exists and I am sorry you have to go through this. Think of it like birth pangs... (All right, all right, that's forcing it.  ) Michael
George H. Smith

Glenn Beck Versus Georgetown Law Student

235 posts in this topic

Beck & Co. have some fun at the expense of a Georgetown Law Student. This is not Beck at his best, but it is still pretty good. Click on the GBTV logo and it will take you to the video.

<iframe src='http://web.gbtv.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=20113247&width=400&height=224&property=gbtv' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight Ms. Sandra Fluke, law student, others shall subsidize your birth control (pills, are the preferred regimen is the assumption correct) because it is a health issue.

OK.

One aspect of taking birth control pills is an increased chance of blood clots, but apparently this is still less than the increase of blood clots by pregnancy.

Blood clots:
A blood clot in your leg or lung is a very rare but serious side effect. If you suddenly have pain or swelling in your leg, or shortness of breath and/or chest pain, see your health care provider immediately. If you have a history of blood clots, you should not take the Pill. Tell your health care provider if anyone in your family (blood relative) has ever had blood clots, especially when they were young.
The Pill increases the risk of blood clots three to fourfold or 15-20 per 100,000 young women per year,
which is less than with pregnancy.
Blood clots are more likely to develop if you're also a smoker, overweight, having surgery, or sitting on a plane for a long time. To lessen your chances of blood clots, don't smoke, and if you're on a long plane trip, get up, walk around, and drink lots of water. If you're scheduled for surgery, and will be unable to move around much after surgery, ask your health care provider about stopping the Pill for 3-4 weeks before surgery and after the surgery until you are up and around.

What I do not understand is that there is no health risks to having unprotected sex with the pill?

AIDS, STD's, hepatitis, etc....these are not health risks?

Adam

Post Script:

What do you think is going through Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland's mind when he looks at this woman?

t1larg.fluke.pelosi.feb23.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing really took off into a firestorm.

Rush Limbaugh is the one taking most of the heat, but he's also giving it out hard.

Obama has even called the Fluke girl to console her about Rush because Rush says she's having so much sex she can't pay for it and wants the others to pay, so what does that make her?

Heh.

Fluke.

What a name for a woman for this particular topic, huh?

You can't make this stuff up.

:)

Here's Rush fighting back, and from the looks of things, this whole affair is an orchestrated public relations event staged by Obama's people to play the misogynist card. (The original word for "public relations" is "propaganda.")

I agree with Rush's explanation.

<object width='320' height='240'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl59.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201203020006'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl59.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201203020006' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='240'></embed></object>

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debbie "Vasserman" Schultz, a self hating Jewess with deep ties to Palestinian fundraising dispatched this to my e-mail this morning:

So here's the latest in the GOP's attack on women's health:

Rush Limbaugh is now leading the charge, waging a series of ugly attacks on a Georgetown law student named Sandra Fluke, who bravely testified in Congress to protect a woman's access to contraception and preventive care.

His response? He called her a "slut"*** who "wants to be paid to have sex," adding, "she's having so much sex, she can't afford the contraception." He neglected to mention that Sandra was testifying about her friend[hearsay evidence is not admissible] who was denied birth control she needed in order to stop ovarian cysts from growing.

Displaying a stunning lack of leadership, Mitt Romney wouldn't denounce Rush's point of view, saying, "I'll just say this, which is, it's not the language I would have used."

Our President -- on the other hand -- called Sandra yesterday to thank her for speaking out for women.

As Democrats, we rally around and support the people who put themselves on the line for the things we believe in. Right now, we need to stand with Sandra.

Add your name in support of Sandra -- and everyone fighting to protect women's health.

The attacks coming from the GOP on women's health are way over the line -- and very dangerous.

Mitt Romney has come out in support of the "personhood" amendment, which would have outlawed some forms of birth control and even in-vitro fertilization. Rick Santorum declared contraception is "harmful to women." It's happening at the state level, too, like the bill Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is about to sign into law that will force women considering abortions to have ultrasounds, and require doctors to ask them if they'd like a picture.

If we don't speak out, it'll continue.

We didn't fight as hard as we did for health care reform just to have key progress for women repealed by GOP politicians, like the Blunt-Rubio amendment would have done. And we didn't fight as hard as we did for women's rights just to have radio "entertainers" like Rush Limbaugh viciously attack women who stand up for the care they need.

Rush Limbaugh said Sandra's parents should be ashamed of her. President Obama told Sandra that her parents should be proud.

We're proud, too, because she's fighting for all of us.

Stand with Sandra and everyone else who's fighting for women's health today:

http://my.democrats.org/Stand-with-Sandra

Thanks,

Debbie

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Chair

Democratic National Committee

****see the slut march thread wherein women and the word are united...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is a rough game, and in her public appearance Fluke agreed to enter it. But I am amazed that I can admire anyone who could admire Rush Limbaugh beyond being occasionally amused by him. He takes refuge in "I was doing my standup routine" when he panders to the lowest elements of society. He is contemptible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

Before we provide the automatic knee jerk reaction to this "event" can we agree on some facts:

1) the original hearing was convened by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on religious liberty and the birth control rule;

2) Ms. Fluke was denied by the process to testify before the hearing because she was not qualified to speak to the issue before the committee;

3) Ms. Fluke had the right to appeal the decision of the committee;

4) Ms. Fluke subsequently appeared at a press conference at the invitation of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi;

5) Ms. Fluke, upon information and belief, was not sworn in at the press conference, nor was she subjected to questioning; and

6) Ms. Fluke provided a testimonial statement about a purported individual who was not able to acquire birth control pills because of the expense.

Rush Limbaugh, who has since apologized for his statements about Ms. Fluke explained in his apology that he was being humorous.

He said he "did not mean a personal attack" on Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown student.
"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
The conservative radio host that throughout his career he has "illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation."

I remember when the outrage and outcry was thunderous over David Letterman calling Sarah Palin "slutty," don't you?

MSNBC"s "reporter" said:

David Letterman’s “Top Ten Highlights of Sarah Palin’s Trip to New York” called Gov. Palin slutty and joked that her daughter got knocked up by A-Rod in the 7th inning of a baseball game. But that’s just fine with MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer. While interviewing conservative host John Ziegler this morning, she said it’s really no big deal, it’s just comedy, and in fact she herself has been called a slut before and she said “I’m fine, I’m still here.”

Did Obama call Sarah Palin to find out of she was okay when Obama supporters were posing with T-shirts saying "Sarah Palin is a cunt"?

Did Barack Obama call Laura Ingraham to see if she was okay when Ed Shultz called her a "right wing slut?"

Did Obama call Michelle Malkin to see if she was okay after Bill Maher said "She’d ‘Name Her Vibrator “Obama?"

Hmmm I guess I just missed all that balanced coverage...

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, for heavens sake, by "political" I meant that she submitted herself to public scrutiny in a political context.

However you dance around it or what other contemptible things other commentators have done I maintain that Limbaugh is contemptible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, for heavens sake, by "political" I meant that she submitted herself to public scrutiny in a political context.

However you dance around it or what other contemptible things other commentators have done I maintain that Limbaugh is contemptible.

Carol:

I got that. I am never going to make a dent in that shield.

He fundamentally revolutionized the medium of radio. He has been an anchor of argumentation concerning the march to marxism in my country.

Contemptible is synonymous with "mean," "abject," "low," "base."

I maintain, and I have followed him since the second year of his national broadcasting, that that is not accurate.

Rush is not mean. He is one of the most generous persons in America. His charity is well known, in addition to his anonymous giving.

Rush is brutally satirical and that could appear to take a low road.

His apology was clear in stating that he chose the wrong metaphorical language and choice of words.

Judged by his fifteen hours per week of virtually spontaneous conversation with his audience, this was barely a whisper on the low road.

I believe there is a much deeper issue on why you perceive him as "contemptible."

What if he had not used poorly chosen words?

What was Ms. Fluke's argument that she offered?

Moving the Rush noise aside, what was her argument?

Can you state it with clarity?

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, for heavens sake, by "political" I meant that she submitted herself to public scrutiny in a political context.

However you dance around it or what other contemptible things other commentators have done I maintain that Limbaugh is contemptible.

Carol:

I got that. I am never going to make a dent in that shield.

He fundamentally revolutionized the medium of radio. He has been an anchor of argumentation concerning the march to marxism in my country.

Contemptible is synonymous with "mean," "abject," "low," "base."

I maintain, and I have followed him since the second year of his national broadcasting, that that is not accurate.

Rush is not mean. He is one of the most generous persons in America. His charity is well known, in addition to his anonymous giving.

Rush is brutally satirical and that could appear to take a low road.

His apology was clear in stating that he chose the wrong metaphorical language and choice of words.

Judged by his fifteen hours per week of virtually spontaneous conversation with his audience, this was barely a whisper on the low road.

I believe there is a much deeper issue on why you perceive him as "contemptible."

What if he had not used poorly chosen words?

What was Ms. Fluke's argument that she offered?

Moving the Rush noise aside, what was her argument?

Can you state it with clarity?

Adam

Well.

Revolutionizing things is a controversial accomplishment. Lenin revolutionized Russia, for example.

I am pleased to hear that Mr. Limbaugh has made charitable donations, and I hope he got good tax exemptions for them. How do you know about his anonymous ones? Inside info?

Whatever he has mealy-mouthed about his latest misogynist outburst means nothing as I am sure you well know.

The definition you provided still fits him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

So, based on this specific incident, you judge him to be a "person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women."

Interesting.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

So, based on this specific incident, you judge him to be a "person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women."

Interesting.

Adam

I do, with the qualification that he is willing to pander to his audience by appearing to be such a person, while preserving his private opinions. Which is contemptible.

I wonder what Ayn Rand would think, to have this wretched slug as a leading voice of liberty in America.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

So, based on this specific incident, you judge him to be a "person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women."

Interesting.

Adam

I do, with the qualification that he is willing to pander to his audience by appearing to be such a person, while preserving his private opinions. Which is contemptible.

I wonder what Ayn Rand would think, to have this wretched slug as a leading voice of liberty in America.

Carol:

She would not have been a fan because of the religious issues. Same way she was not supportive of Reagan.

I just want to get a general standard of behavior to judge a person. I frankly wish that Rush had not said what he said in the way he said it. It was still funny.

George Carlin and a slew of comedians have made cutting remarks about women. There are female comedians and commentators that have done the same.

My question to you, my friend, is, if the words that he used and the phrases that he used were used by comedian X, or radio host Y, would the words in and of themselves make that person a "contemptible misogynist?"

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rush Limbaugh issued a public apology to Fluke earlier today. From what I heard, it was very sincere.

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

So, based on this specific incident, you judge him to be a "person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women."

Interesting.

Adam

I do, with the qualification that he is willing to pander to his audience by appearing to be such a person, while preserving his private opinions. Which is contemptible.

I wonder what Ayn Rand would think, to have this wretched slug as a leading voice of liberty in America.

Carol:

She would not have been a fan because of the religious issues. Same way she was not supportive of Reagan.

I just want to get a general standard of behavior to judge a person. I frankly wish that Rush had not said what he said in the way he said it. It was still funny.

George Carlin and a slew of comedians have made cutting remarks about women. There are female comedians and commentators that have done the same.

My question to you, my friend, is, if the words that he used and the phrases that he used were used by comedian X, or radio host Y, would the words in and of themselves make that person a "contemptible misogynist?"

Adam

Adam , you are asking me to divorce the words and phrases from their context.

Nice try.

Of course these phrases can always be funny. One of my favourites is the Feynman quote 9th cited once "You are nothing but a whore!"That was really funny. I have myself been called a slut on occasion, although not a prostitute, and it was funny in context, but it was not in public and it was not said by the likes of Limbaugh.

His words in his context do make him contemptible, and his "apoligies", maybe more so.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

Then I was certainly not clear. I am asking you to separate the words from the personality and keep the context.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

Then I was certainly not clear. I am asking you to separate the words from the personality and keep the context.

Adam

Why do you ask me to separate the words of a radio personality, from his "personality"? All I know of him are his words, that is all he offers to the public.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

Essentially, I am trying to evaluate the nature and content of the communication in and of itself.

Are the words themselves, devoid of the effects of personality, in and of their own nature, conclusory of a person who is a "contemptible misogynist?"

I find this issue fascinating and it is an aspect of modern communications that I want to address.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

Essentially, I am trying to evaluate the nature and content of the communication in and of itself.

Are the words themselves, devoid of the effects of personality, in and of their own nature, conclusory of a person who is a "contemptible misogynist?"

I find this issue fascinating and it is an aspect of modern communications that I want to address.

Adam

You are asking a rhetorical question, as I think you know. You have left the context and personality issues dangling.

Of course there are buzzwords which cause people to make unthinking judgments. But labelling in and of itself does not survive scrutiny after the heat of the moment. Limbaugh's words of slut and prostitute, addressed to a stranger who was commenting on a public issue of contraception, and his saying her parents would be proud of her, were buzzwords in the heat of the moment which his own "personality" expressed; but he has a national audience he was well aware of; he is a public person; his buzzwords cannot hold up so he has "apologized".

My personal characterization of his public statements as misogynist etc. do hold up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

Since a rhetorical question, as you know, is a question which answers itself, my question was not rhetorical.

The words, for example, in Ms. Fluke's statement, should also be subject to the same type of analysis that i am trying to make with Mr. Limbaugh's words.

Ms. Fluke was not walking down the street and a reporter asked her a question.

She chose to make a statement, and, entered the public realm by appearing at the invitation of the Minority Leader, and, to announce that she was speaking for women.

She addressed an issue that was not the subject of the original committee hearing's purpose. She had a message that concerned a different issue.

Her words, separated from her personality can also be analyzed.

Do all women agree with her statement? Do most women agree? Do some women agree?

Separating the emotion from the syntax is what I am trying to accomplish in both cases before the public.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

Since a rhetorical question, as you know, is a question which answers itself, my question was not rhetorical.

The words, for example, in Ms. Fluke's statement, should also be subject to the same type of analysis that i am trying to make with Mr. Limbaugh's words.

Ms. Fluke was not walking down the street and a reporter asked her a question.

She chose to make a statement, and, entered the public realm by appearing at the invitation of the Minority Leader, and, to announce that she was speaking for women.

She addressed an issue that was not the subject of the original committee hearing's purpose. She had a message that concerned a different issue.

Her words, separated from her personality can also be analyzed.

Do all women agree with her statement? Do most women agree? Do some women agree?

Separating the emotion from the syntax is what I am trying to accomplish in both cases before the public.

Adam

OK , fine. I said in my first post on this topic that this lady had entered the public political realm by her statement.No argument. But where are you going after this? Do most men agree with Limbaugh's statements?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol:

I do not speak for most men, I did not agree with the manner that Rush approached her statement. In fact, it did not track well when you broke it down, but it was still humorous.

I do not think her argument was convincing at all. There were some elements of truth in it, but it was fallacious.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Rush Limbaugh rocks.

I don't agree with everything he says, but then I generally don't agree with anyone. :smile:

I am a total fan of Rush.

I think when he broadcasts while smiling, squinting and smugly smoking a cigar, the image drives liberals nuts. :smile:

(As to the substance of Fluke, I think he was blasting and ridiculing an obvious Obama propaganda plant, not women in general and not even Fluke in particular. I don't think he cares about her one way or another. I admit, I thought his quip that Bill Clinton might also calling Fluke to sympathize with her was very funny.)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Rush Limbaugh rocks.

I don't agree with everything he says, but then I generally don't agree with anyone. :smile:

I am a total fan of Rush.

I think when he broadcasts while smiling, squinting and smugly smoking a cigar, the image drives liberals nuts. :smile:

(As to the substance of Fluke, I think he was blasting and ridiculing an obvious Obama propaganda plant, not women in general and not even Fluke in particular. I don't think he cares about her one way or another. I admit, I thought his quip that Bill Clinton might also calling Fluke to sympathize with her was very funny.)

Michael

I'm sure he is often funny. He's a radio entertainer after all. And of course he does not care about Fluke, or anyone else he targets, one way or another. They are just targets.

But I do think that the relentless Us vs. Tnem form of public discourse, carried out by booming bullies in broadcast booths, is destructive of critical thinking and political progress.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"....booming bullies in broadcast booths..."

Good one.

A cage match between the "booming bullies in broadcast booths" and the "bitching broads in bombastic broadcast bandwidths."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now