Glenn Beck Versus Georgetown Law Student


Recommended Posts

"....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."

"....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."

Sir, surely you mean "pulchritudinous persons in pastel podcasts" don't you?

I know who would win!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi guys, Now that you have given that slut Fluke and those whimpering leftist men another good whomping, I wonder if you have any comment on Limbaugh's second "apology" ? I thought it was fairly humor

Me, too. There was a great boxing match between Buckley and (I think) Julia Child on SCTV. Saying something stupid and pointlessly nasty once is forgivable, but saying it for three solid days makes th

I found a lot of funny things in the saga of Rush Limbaugh and the slut/prostitute, pill-popping parasitical sex-worker, Ms Fluke.

First up is that Rush seemed not to understand how female contraception works. I got the distinct impression that he thinks The Pill must be gobbled before every sexual encounter, and therefore Ms Fluke was the equivalent of yo momma the crack ho, needing a fix of state-stolen liberal fuck-drug to make it from one sexual encounter to another. Fucking hilarious to listen to him reaming out a woman for daring to talk about contraception coverage, a woman who would not touch him with a bargepole. Yuck.

Second, Rush missed the context of the Fluke witness. While the (since-defeated) tag-on "Blunt-Rubio amendment" to a Senate transportation bill was leading up to a vote** , a House committee (Republican-led) was taking testimony on the principle underlining the point of the Blunt amendment to the transportation bill.**

So, a Democrat on the committee noted in passing that there were no women selected to testify before the committee, no women witnesses. Only men were debating and offering sage advice on the suitability of legislative instruments like the Blunt amendment.** All the Republican candidates at the top of primaries in the nation support the Blunt amendment.**

Of course, knowing what the Blunt amendment** is was apparently beyond Rush and his research team. A canny PR move (or sleazy PR stunt) by the Democrats to show that legislative instruments like the Blunt amendment** (like the pending bill for transvaginal mandated ultrasound before any abortion; like other instruments being prepared or imposed by Republican state government. Like demanding insurance companies allow employers to pick and choose which "immoral" medicines and procedures to ban or de-list or hobble with additional mandated procedures) -- what does Rush think?

What does Rush think about these issues of interest to women in both parties (and Independents)?

Well, that a woman who tells him and us that the Catholic university she attends requires her to buy student-insurance while denying her contraception-covering policies (her choice is limited) is a slut. She thinks that Georgetown should not be able to rewrite her policy under Obamacare# to exclude oral contraception coverage (as she pointed out, the whore, some 15% of women use the pill to regulate ovarian function and to prepare for pregancy in women with dysfunction in their reproductive hormone levels).

Rush thinks she can only be a prostitute and that if she insists Uncle Sam subsidize her crazed sorority gang-bang lifestyle, she should post the resulting sex acts he paid for on the internet (that he misunderstood that Fluke already pays for her insurance through her student fees and levies, for fuck sake, is funny or not, depending on the ox being gored).

It makes Santorum's sectarian big brother bullshit on contraception stand out, too.

Romney gamed this issue, first pretending to be all Presidential, saying contraception within a marital relationship is not an issue he would get involved with (later that day he clarified that he, like all four front-running Republicans, supported the Blunt amendment**). The other two are FOR restrictions on abortion, contraception, religious exceptions from (present and future) mandates in ANY state and under FEDERAL law. They all SUPPORT personhood laws. One of them fully SUPPORTS a constitutional ban on abortion. This is hideous pandering to the religious nutjobs in their confederacy. Would Ayn Rand be able to vote for one of the current crop of panderers to the Falwell crowd? Maybe, but I wonder.

Funny thirdly is, in a sad way, that Rush's misstep led to longstanding advertisers severing their relationship with this show. It is not good for him. Not good to hear so many Republicans backing away from him, deploring and condemning and rebutting his rhetoric. It puts on the spot those Republicans who still support religious exception law and state mandated procedures for women (I should note that one amendment to the Virginia bill that failed to pass was a tit-for-tat procedure. If women had to be vaginally-probed by ultrasound before the state would consent to her having a vacuum abortion or D&C or other procedure in a clinic -- and women would be offered the pictures -- the amendment would subject men to a prostate exam. Fortunately for the nutjobs in Virginia, there is not a great number of women in their legislature ...)

Funnier still for some is that Rush Limbaugh felt the need to issue a personal apology to Fluke. Really funny for some hardball Democrats is the shit sticks and that they will use this shit to fling at their opponents: Republican call ordinary women SLUTS AND WHORES ... YOUR DAUGHTERS and SISTERS yarrrrggggh yadda yadda ...

Not funny if you are a Republican -- Rush's personal attacks on the slut/whore/prostitute/wants-to-get-paid-for-sex-on-campus/dirty little Democrat plant/"Georgetown co-ed should post sex videos for taxpayers heh heh heh and I am on my fourth wife heh heh heh" can only lead to a setback among women voters in the undecided column.

Michael, I have pointed out before that it is bad politics to go against 50% of the electorate on an issue that is so basic to individual freedom (in the context of present society, not utopia) -- 98% of women use the commonly-prescribed forms of hormonal contraception. American medical insurance policies overwhelmingly include this where they provide drug coverage.

(I should not need to mention that my country has basic health protection mandated by the Canada Health Act, but provinces and other federal regulation provides most women in Canada with access to hormonal treatments through extended health policies, as a benefit of public/private insurance.)

So, is it funny that Rush Limbaugh personally trashed a woman in the worst possible terms (whoring slut prostitute) for speaking up against the overwhelmingly male witnesses who wanted instruments like the Blunt amendment** passed into law in the USA?

No, not if you support the defeat of Obama in November, in my opinion, reading the political winds.

Rush is enough of a voice of the right to have influence. In this instance he attracted condemnation from the Republican party -- who felt it necessary to separate themselves from his kind of ick factor rhetoric. Even the House speaker thought it necessary to deplore Rush's personal attack.

They do not want all women who oppose instruments like the Blunt amendment** to be thought of as whores.

Why? Well, because that roughly means half of voters are potential, if not actual, whores. I do not think Democrats will be afraid to taint the Republican party with Rush's comments from this point forward in the campaign. The issue, the underlying issue that all the Republican male witnesses testified to, is an employer's right to dictate which medical procedures or prescriptions will be offered or denied to women based on "religious" line-item-veto over insurance policies of people (women!) like Fluke.

I gotta ask for Kat's take on Rush's whore comments ...

I don't know. Do other folks here support a Blunt amendment and therefore scathe Fluke? Or do they deplore the crude comments that will now be stuck to those who carry the flag against Obama?

Polls on this issue are not pretty already. Santorum and Gingrich and Romney do not poll well with women -- the taint of the contraception issue may further degrade their support across the board. Looking at today's Marist polling in Virginia and Ohio‡, the last thing the Republicans need is to have something like Rush and the Blunt amendment stuck to their shoe (Virginia, surprise surprise, is engaged in furious debate over state-mandated transvaginal whoopee).

Obama, judging by today's poll, would crush all four leadership hopefuls in the states in contest today.

Now, I can understand an argument that states that no universal mandate should be imposed in any condition (like federal mandate of emergency care at state-supported facilities, a hidden cost of American health-care). Newt Gingrich, for example, can argue that it is supremely important that Catholics (and other 'faith community' be able to deny contraception benefits to students, employees, etcetera, and that a federal mandate that simply assigns to insurance companies the command that they offer no 'contraception' banning policies in America is wrong and offensive to liberty in principle.

I can understand that argument (SLUT!). What I do not understand is Newt saying the issue is not about 'access to contraception' -- that this is not being argued. From a woman's point of view it is the issue that raises questions about Republican intentions regarding women's health and universal mandates. What reassurance do those uncertain women get from Republican authorities ...?

In my hideous northern brainwashed way, I support the Flukes of America who want to speak about access and their opposition to religious objection carte-blanche to fiddle with her medical coverage. I may not be fully convinced of federalist arguments for universal coverage, but when we look at the 'civilized world,' contraception is part of basic family planning, as a tool of emancipating women in the developing world, as an instrument of women's autonomy with their own bodies, and the decision to make such matters medical and social. It is one of those things that in some people's minds is part of the kind of world they want to live in, where access is easy and confidential to 'family planning.' In my country, right or wrong, these are no longer political decisions (for example, we have no abortion law. If my sister wanted the morning-after pill she can get one free today).

This certainly can be horrifying to a certain utopian view, free or low-cost pills as a tool of social engineering at a local, state, federal and international level. I understand that horror too, but it is a reality whose horror is already fully on us.

I guess I will have to own up to be a lusty supporter of sluts, whores, and prostitutes like Fluke, if not a whore myself.

___________

#Obamacare is worse than Stalin, agreed, but if it is a portent of grim future overlordships of universalism, think about what Supreme Court would do to interpret law that mandates no co-pays and no deductibles of insurance policies for contraceptive across the board, taking the decision on contraceptive coverage out of the hands of the religious institutions and placing it firmly in the insurance industry's mandate. The companies could care less, they will adjust rates according, but what do women actually think and want from their institutions right now on these issues of contraception and reproductive health?

** I may have to spend a few hours (maybe days) doing a search for information on the Blunt amendment. I may pause to read of the Virginia governor's support of the transvaginal ultrasound mandate, and other legislative intrusions and pecking away at abortion availability in Republican strongholds. It could be weeks. I should perhaps presume that everyone knows what needs to be known about the Blunt amendment to the transportation bill in the Senate.

I know you may have to hold your nose sometimes in American politics, that you may have to pretend to not notice the stink when someone lets off a big smelly one, but I do think this tends to harm the campaign against Obama insofar as the campaign may be connected to Rush.

There is a reason behind the disapproval and rejection of casting contraception debates in those terms. Would we tolerate one of our own here being called a whore for speaking her mind on this issue, whatever her political stripe? Is that the new normal in issues of female reproductive medicine in this election cycle/ I hope not. I think not.

In Ohio
– where President Obama’s approval rating stands at 45 percent – he leads Paul by 10 points among registered voters (48 to 38 percent), Romney by 12 points (50 to 38 percent), Santorum by 14 (50 to 36 percent) and Gingrich by 15 (51 to 36 percent).
In Virginia
– where his approval rating is 51 percent – his leads are even bigger: 17 points over Romney (52 to 35 percent), 21 points over Paul (53 to 32 percent), 22 points over Santorum (54 to 32 percent) and 26 over Gingrich (57 to 31 percent).
"Obama is reaching the percentages he won in 2008 – 51 percent in Ohio, 53 percent in Virginia – while Republican voters so far have failed to coalesce around their candidates" --
http://firstread.msn...nd-neck-in-ohio

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I don't think the particulars of the politics matters in any of this stuff (including the Blunt amendment). This is a show, a distraction tactic, to keep the press occupied with good ratings (because people like gossip and scandal) and hide the true crap they are getting ready to spring on us. And it's not just Democrats involved. It's both sides.

There's a nasty war coming and that's just one of the things...

I believe Rush saw that, too, and went overboard.

But on the substance, there's also a bullying persuasion tactic at work. Here's the technique. In order to set a precedent, you first make a big over-the-top shove.

In this case, it was a college student (looking innocent, but actually serving as a propagandist) who claimed she has seen women at the 50k on up a year college she goes to under great suffering, emotional pain and hardship, with lives totally devastated because they could not afford their contraception. As gravy, she grossly exaggerated the price.

And it is playing out exactly like these things always play out. People yell and scream and holler about the absurdity, but you dig in like a mule, scream rights, bigotry and so forth to get publicity traction. You involve important people. (Notice even Obama got directly involved.)

After a while you back off, but only if the other side "negotiates" and grants you a nudge in the direction you want to go. But you make sure that nudge is your precedent. That way, since it was only a tiny thing, the other side thinks they've won, but basically you have. Once you have your precedent established, you barge in with both elbows and start shoving and bludgeoning like the Dickens to open the space.

The part in this last paragraph is still playing out.

The real prize in Fluke's case is total government takeover of the health-care system, including religiously funded hospitals. But it looks like a silly blowup over funding contraception right now.

I've had over 30 years in Brazil seeing things exactly like this every single day.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Carol,

Talk radio and Fox opinion shows for the conservatives.

Other cable TV news, and most all broadcast TV news and print news for the liberals (since they are not so good at holding audience for opinion shows).

They all do the same us against them crap.

Have you noticed that the owners of all these opposing media organizations go to the same clubs and don't have any trouble with each other? And, if you manage to cut through the smokescreens, you might notice that they all bank at essentially the same places.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Rush’s humor but occasionally he is as mean and rotten as Phil Maher, or whatever that dirt bags name is. It should have remained a State Controlled Health Care and Religious Freedom issue. Rush was funny and Ms Fluke is a parasite but I think Rush’s apology says it all. He insulted too many voting women. His wife may even have taken offense. I listened to the original EIB broadcast in my comfortable car seat as my taxes were being prepared. I went back into the office to sign the documents. Nothing owed. Nothing in return. I like being off the radar. We need to stay on message, El Rushbo.

Peter Taylor

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brazil reference is interesting. These two references refer to new contraception measures taken in 2007.

Brazil offers morning-after pill to the poor.

Brazil's government has added "morning after" pills to its newly expanded birth control program in hopes of helping poor people reduce unwanted pregnancies and dangerous illegal abortions.

Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao announced the addition a month after President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said the government would provide cheap birth control pills at 10,000 drug stores across Latin America's biggest country.

Speaking at a round-table discussion Monday sponsored by the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper, Temporao called the morning-after pill "an important tool for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies that will definitely be part of our strategy" to help Brazil's poor have the same access to birth control as its rich elite.

Brazil to subsidise contraception

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has introduced a $51m (£26m) plan to subsidise birth control pills in Latin America's largest country.

He said the programme would give the poor the same right as the wealthy to have the number of children they want.

...

However, many poor people do not take advantage of this scheme so now the pills will be made available at more than 3,500 private drug stores at significantly reduced prices.

The government is also planning to increase the number of free vasectomies performed at state hospitals.

The plan will mean that a supply of pills lasting a month could be purchased for around 20 US cents.

...

the move has been welcomed by women's groups who say they hope it could help to reduce the 800,000 illegal abortions that Brazilian women have each year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, I feel I must have some fun with your "you" above, and play with the implication that I do all these things 'one' does in your scenario. I wish you would have considered some of my fact statements, if not agree that Rush harmed anti-Obama efforts with this three days of radio bait against Fluke. Indeed he did go overboard, and the sharks are hungry. Maybe you can tell me why he persisted for so long, why he thought it would be effective.

First, I ("you") note again the importance of the Blunt amendment, and that opposition to it is not a mental defect or sign of Babylon.

I do not dig in like a mule, I do not scream rights, I do not shout bigotry and so forth to get publicity traction. I do not back off only after the other side "negotiates" and grants me a nudge in the direction I want to go.

Michael, it seems you glanced past the points on political damage and the argument on instruments like Blunt. It is not a good three day outburst to my eyes in sum total, yet if I remember you cheered the rhetoric. Do you now assume Fluke is a propagandist or/and that Rush himself is to blame for the harsh critical scrutiny on his remarks?

Obama noticed the remarks were hateful and unjustified and made political hay. What else would a good opponent do?

Barging in with both elbows and shoving and bludgeoning like the Dickens to open the space for ... what? The space for debate? The initial House committeemen blundered with their all-male contraception list and exclusion of a Democratic witness (she was 'not qualified' to testify on religion and law said the Republican chair).

So, who would that be, the barger and bludgeoner? Was it the Democratic machinery taking advantage of a Republican blunder, and making further hay with Rush's tirade?

I wish you would comment on legislative instruments like Virginia's, or discuss a woman's point of view. If not the vile propagandist slut, then an imaginary American like the 98% of US women who use contraception. Discuss her expectations of the Republican attention paid to her management of her gonads ...

What are the principles in play for you here, Michael?

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not dig in like a mule, I do not scream rights, I do not shout bigotry and so forth to get publicity traction. I do not back off only after the other side "negotiates" and grants me a nudge in the direction I want to go.

William,

A quick comment. I was not referring to you.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish you would have considered some of my fact statements...

William,

As I said, I believe they are secondary to what is really going on. All this will go one way or the other depending on what happens in the upcoming elections.

Maybe you can tell me why he persisted for so long, why he thought it would be effective.

My guess is a show business misfire.

His initial mocking spiked ratings and buzz, so he poured it on.

That's the best I can do. I do not think he is a bigot.

What are the principles in play for you here, Michael?

Social engineering of the worst kind.

You might want to take a look at a book by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein called Nudge.

Sunstein is Obama's Czar-in-Chief. He heads the Regulatory office. He's the one who gets to make up the rules for everyone else as he goes along.

Including the rules for Obamacare.

And there is not one check or balance against what he does. You can only check something after you get damaged, put out of business, whatever. Then you can go to court. But even then, good luck.

The Fluke flareup is no fluke. But it is nothing important in the big picture. It is a prompt for a nudge. The talking points about it you get in mainstream media are entertainment and little else.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Free-Contraception.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Grammar of Rhetoric:

Sandra Fluke, Past President of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice****, was invited to testify before Congress on the importance of birth control to women, but Republicans refused to let her speak. Listen now to her tell the stories of just two of the many women who rely on birth control for their health and well-being.

Screen-Shot-2012-03-02-at-9.18.22-PM.png

Surprise, surprise ...Ms. Fluke is a committed activist. Surprise, surprise ...when she discovered that Georgetown's insurance coverage for students did not cover "contraceptives," she chose to go to Georgetown because of that issue.

****http://lsrj.org/documents/11-12%20LSRJ%20Internship%20and%20Fellowship%20Guide.pdf

Ms. Fluke is an activist plant...surprise...Nancy Pelosi should have set off every alarm bell out there.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you can tell me why he persisted for so long, why he thought it would be effective.

My guess is a show business misfire.

His initial mocking spiked ratings and buzz, so he poured it on.

That's the best I can do. I do not think he is a bigot.

Michael

It does not matter much what he "is", does it? He is an entertainer who will pour on anything that spikes ratings, a moral blank and a cynic. A rich one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from the California Feminist Blogs, Independent Alternatives to the Malestream Media in California

Posted February 3rd, 2012, well before her appearance before the Committee.

Sandra Fluke, Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice

This blog is part of the #HERvotes blog carnival.

As you may have recently read in the New York Times, although Georgetown’s student health insurance doesn’t cover contraception, it does cover birth control pills when they’re prescribed for medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy (e.g. severe acne, mood disorders, etc.). This is called the “over-ride” process because it over-rides the usual ban on contraceptive coverage. Unfortunately, this over-ride process is terribly flawed and fails many women at Georgetown. The problems with this process illustrate the consequences for women’s health when university administrators dictate which reasons for a birth control prescription are the “right” reasons.*****

Because of an obsession with preventing students from fraudulently using the over-ride to get contraception coverage for the “wrong” reason (preventing pregnancy), students who attempt to use the over-ride process are sometimes subjected to questioning and accusations that they are lying about their qualifying medical needs. This is followed with long delays and bureaucratic barriers that don’t exist for any other prescription covered by Georgetown’s insurance. The Times profiled how Georgetown’s policy resulted in a medical tragedy for one woman. In response a Georgetown spokeswoman said that:

problems like this were rare and that doctors at the health service knew how to help students get coverage for contraceptives needed for medical reasons.

If only that were true! Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice actually surveyed students at the law school about this. For some students, the over-ride process works adequately, but 65% of students attempting to utilize the over-ride process reported being subjected to extensive questioning, inordinate clerical issues, extensive delays, or other complications because of disbelief from doctors and insurance administrators. 20% either never received their medication or were never reimbursed by the insurance company. Here are the experiences of just a few students:

I was without birth control for many months because of problems with the over-ride. I spoke with people at [the student health] clinic, the Georgetown main insurance office, the insurance company, the drug insurance company, and a pharmacy. I was put on hold multiple times and had to call some of these people multiple times. After investing at least ten hours in the process, I gave up. . . .

Simply because I am sexually active, the doctor assumed I was lying even though I have medical needs. I struggled with getting an over-ride because the doctor was hesitant even though I reported severe pain and mood changes that affect my functioning as a student. . . .

[M]y OB/GYN suspects that I have endometriosis and I took a specific pill to help control it. Endometriosis cannot be definitively diagnosed without surgery, and obtaining a waiver was stressful and time consuming. It unnecessarily distracted me from my classes. . . .

I have found the health care coverage ban on birth control embarrassing and potentially harmful. When scheduling a yearly gynecological exam, I was subject to a line of hostile questioning twice: once by the person scheduling the exam and once by the doctor performing the exam. The questions included queries about my sexual history, which seems appropriate for the doctor to ask about, but not the scheduler. A yearly gynecological exam is a recommended procedure and may not even be tied to a birth control prescription. Georgetown’s refusal to cover birth control creates a potential burden on a woman getting this exam at all. . . .

Tragically, Georgetown’s policy has also created rampant misinformation regarding student insurance coverage of women’s reproductive healthcare generally, leading to some students foregoing essential medical care:

was intimidated by the [‘override’] process and thus I did forego OBGYN care for over a year. More importantly, the reputation that Georgetown has as being . . . unsupportive of women’s reproductive health prevented me from seeking out STD testing after I was sexually assaulted. (I assumed [Georgetown] would not cover my HIV/STD testing because when I was tested last year at my provider’s office . . . as part of a regular/routine exam, I paid $500 due to lack of coverage. It was not until several months after I was assaulted that I found out . . . that [Georgetown] would cover such tests. In general, there is a problematic lack of info about women’s health coverage on campus. I did not even know I could get an OBGYN exam at the law center until a friend told me my 2L year. While I support Georgetown’s Jesuit identity and am a person of faith myself, I find our school’s policy to be . . . harmful to students. . . .

I’d say “harmful to students” is putting it lightly. That’s why we’re so thankful that the new Affordable Care Act regulations will protect vulnerable students and end these types of dangerous insurance policies!

==============================================================

This is an excerpt from Ms. Fluke's written testimony before the Committee, reproduced on February 16, 2012 on the Law Students For Reproductive Justice website...http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11800&st=20&p=157728entry157728

*****"You see, Georgetown does not cover contraceptives in its student insurance, although it does cover contraceptives for faculty and staff. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and ask that you hear them."

Now some might say that Ms. Fluke lied before Congress, that she knowingly mislead the Committee and the country. Not me, she looks pure as the driven snow...99.9% pure, just like the Ivory Soap girl in the commercial...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything gets old. It looks like Limbaugh's tried and true formula of 30 years is showing a few leaks and maybe even (gasp!) costing him money in the form of sponsors, until the heat dies down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He is an entertainer who will pour on anything that spikes ratings, a moral blank and a cynic. A rich one.

Carol,

I don't see Rush as an opportunistic hypocrite.

I see him as a quite moral person who has well defined values and fights for them with great competence.

His public shares the same values and resonate with his competence, which is why he is No/ 1 and has such a large audience.

Of course, not everybody shares his values.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything gets old. It looks like Limbaugh's tried and true formula of 30 years is showing a few leaks and maybe even (gasp!) costing him money in the form of sponsors, until the heat dies down.

Carol:

So the fact that she was an operative with an agenda and apparently lied in her testimony and it has nothing at all to do with contraception does not matter?

Just get the rich fat successful self made white guy and all will be fine.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything gets old. It looks like Limbaugh's tried and true formula of 30 years is showing a few leaks and maybe even (gasp!) costing him money in the form of sponsors, until the heat dies down.

Carol:

So the fact that she was an operative with an agenda and apparently lied in her testimony and it has nothing at all to do with contraception does not matter?

Just get the rich fat successful self made white guy and all will be fine.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything gets old. It looks like Limbaugh's tried and true formula of 30 years is showing a few leaks and maybe even (gasp!) costing him money in the form of sponsors, until the heat dies down.

Carol:

So the fact that she was an operative with an agenda and apparently lied in her testimony and it has nothing at all to do with contraception does not matter?

Just get the rich fat successful self made white guy and all will be fine.

Adam

Of course it does not matter, in Limbaugh's world. Only the numbers matter. The facts and issues of the situation matter to me, but I am not part of this equation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore I resent your implication that "getting" a person because he is white, rich or self-made, or anything else for that matter, or that "getting" people in general, is a motivation of mine. I thought you knew me better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Surprise, surprise ...Ms. Fluke is a committed activist. Surprise, surprise ...

Thanks for digging that up, Adam: I think she sounds like a boon for the world, with a future fighting trafficking of women and lingering slavery issues. I can get behind that.

I accept that she was a plant in the sense of a well-chosen or fully-partisan spokesperson for women's concerns (and not necessarily narrow 'feminist' concerns ), planted by the Democrats to show up Republican menfolk. She is articulate and informed for a slut and prostitute. As a propagandist, she is certainly measured and effective. She gained more sympathy and sympathetic hearing on the Blunt amendment she opposed than did Rush, unless you count the OL cheerleading for his personal insults as sympathy. I just do not buy his tone and message of hate and anger and discrimination. Sadly, I know too much about his personal life to have much respect for his personal moral character. Him slobbering on about sex and women is particularly unappealing.

Thanks for these two bits especially:

although Georgetown’s student health insurance doesn’t cover contraception, it does cover birth control pills when they’re prescribed for medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy (e.g. severe acne, mood disorders, etc.).

"You see, Georgetown does not cover contraceptives in its student insurance, although it does cover contraceptives for faculty and staff."

That's kind of a good one. Faculty and staff have somehow negotiated a way around moral/religious restrictions on their employer-supplied insurance, a less-discriminatory blend, a package of benefits that does not insist on Jesuit rectitude as it does with the student body.

I don't see Rush as an opportunistic hypocrite.

I see him as a quite moral person who has well defined values and fights for them with great competence.

Well, the best word to describe my reaction is that happy word meh.

In this instance, spending three days calling an activist against trafficking in humans a prostitute just did not offer me any value. The fight seemed mad, ugly and unbalanced, not a great show of intelligence or class. Crude stereotypes, demeaning insults, this is worth little to me in the scheme of things. Anyone who attacks the person and not the argument, or who casually knocks out this kind of uninformed viciousness -- as if Fluke was some filth deserving of vituperation -- gets my scorn for their protestations of higher morality than their targets. Like Gingrich squawking about Clinton's blowjobs while he was doing the MyWifeIsAway hokey-pokey with the intern in his office.

Morally clean Rush versus dirty dirty dirty slut Fluke and the monsters of the Democratic apocalypse?

The hypocrisy -- as with no moral/religious run-around for GT staff and GT faculty -- the hypocrisy seems to lie with the religious themselves, not with Fluke and perhaps not with Rush. Rush went overboard and the sharks are at him. None of his erstwhile Republican pals wants to follow him in the water. It's too bad his side that he botched his attempt to deflect a Democratic political gambit. That was one of my observations, which no one is tangling with ...

What do people think about the underlying issues raised, in the context of Georgetown, Virginia's vaginal whoopee bill, calling women whores, the Blunt amendment? Moreover, what do the women think? Are you finding agreement with the women in your lives on these interrelated issues, oh ye wise men of OL?

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore I resent your implication that "getting" a person because he is white, rich or self-made, or anything else for that matter, or that "getting" people in general, is a motivation of mine. I thought you knew me better.

Fair enough.

If my memory serves me correctly, you do not listen to the show.

So how do you make an evaluation of him?

Again, I thought Rush totally missed in his satire. It was humorous, but I knew it was missing the mark.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites
Surprise, surprise ...Ms. Fluke is a committed activist. Surprise, surprise ...

Thanks for digging that up, Adam:

What do people think about the underlying issues raised, in the context of Georgetown, Virginia's vaginal whoopee bill, calling women whores, the Blunt amendment? I mean, what do the women think? Are you finding agreement with the women in your lives on these interrelated issues?

William:

My pleasure. I agree with you that her "presentation image" was perfect. Scrubbed, mid-western and fresh face. She did not have that edgy look.

However, when I watched her eyes and matched it to the transcript I got my first dissonance alarms.

Additionally, the fact that she was thirty (30) and finishing law school meant that there had to be an interim history.

The last aspect that caused me to dig deeper was the semantic of "contraception" being intermingled with "women's health."

I have a lot of close independent feminist friends who cover the entire political range. More than half of them were not comfortable with her on a number of levels.

We shall see where they finally settle on this one.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore I resent your implication that "getting" a person because he is white, rich or self-made, or anything else for that matter, or that "getting" people in general, is a motivation of mine. I thought you knew me better.

Fair enough.

If my memory serves me correctly, you do not listen to the show.

So how do you make an evaluation of him?

Again, I thought Rush totally missed in his satire. It was humorous, but I knew it was missing the mark.

Adam

I have listened to his show exactly once, for an hour, one of the longest of my life. It was while I was driving across Canada between coffee stops, very tired and needed the radio to keep me awake, and by a fluke (no pun intended) of reception, the only station that came in carried him, yelling about Obama the MARXIST, I forget the issue he was hammering on, but on and on, the MARXIST< THE MARXIST, really he just yelled it for an hour. Sometimes he lowered the voice a little but believe me I heard no satire, no humour, just the yelling. I thought at first it was a commercial but it didn't stop. Needless to say it did not make a good impression on me but it did keep me awake and I got to Riviere du Loup in record time, I have never driven so fast in my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore I resent your implication that "getting" a person because he is white, rich or self-made, or anything else for that matter, or that "getting" people in general, is a motivation of mine. I thought you knew me better.

Fair enough.

If my memory serves me correctly, you do not listen to the show.

So how do you make an evaluation of him?

Again, I thought Rush totally missed in his satire. It was humorous, but I knew it was missing the mark.

Adam

I have listened to his show exactly once, for an hour, one of the longest of my life. It was while I was driving across Canada between coffee stops, very tired and needed the radio to keep me awake, and by a fluke (no pun intended) of reception, the only station that came in carried him, yelling about Obama the MARXIST, I forget the issue he was hammering on, but on and on, the MARXIST< THE MARXIST, really he just yelled it for an hour. Sometimes he lowered the voice a little but believe me I heard no satire, no humour, just the yelling. I thought at first it was a commercial but it didn't stop. Needless to say it did not make a good impression on me but it did keep me awake and I got to Riviere du Loup in record time, I have never driven so fast in my life.

Very atypical segment you must have gotten. I would love to know the month and the year if you can narrow it down.

Inquiring minds want to know...lol

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