Glenn Beck Versus Georgetown Law Student


Recommended Posts

Surprise, surprise ...Ms. Fluke is a committed activist. Surprise, surprise ...
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?

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.

I conclude, in my manic socialist loopiness, that the Rush/Fluke imbroglio comes off with damage to the anti-Obama campaign. As you say, where they (not merely your feminist friends) finally settle ...

Still, my conclusions aside since predictions may fail in the eight months to come, what are your personal opinions about the Blunt amendment attempt to give employers a means to skirt the contraception issue by amending the Obamacare mandate to insurers ...?

I mean, it is very real at Georgetown, an odd situation likely mirrored at a number (though a minority) of colleges or universities, where the Jesuit demands for chastity of the student body (even a thirty-year-old slut body like that of the late-blooming sorority whore Fluke) are lifted for the more important porters, librarians, janitoresses, power plant receptionists, clerks, professors and deans ...

What do you think of that, Adam, if it is possible to remove it from the current stew of events that coincide?

And what do you think of the end-run around the religious objectors by extending his "this is basic health care, no deductibles, no co-pays on this, you fuckers" command to the insurers? I know you will likely abhor the Stalinism of this kind of command, but could you as a manager make this kind of decision inside your business: would you bother as an employer to pick which 'lady bits' medicine and procedures you would allow to be insured by your workers?

Maybe that questions deserves a straight-up libertarian answer in favour of every and all private employers or quasi-public employers (state-aided or regulated educational institutes) -- to offer whatever they want, even nothing, to their employers, and to refuse to pay for contraception for sluts.

In the other instance, Adam, what do you think of the looming transvaginal ultrasound mandate for women in Virginia? Nobody yet has commented on that.

And the Blunt amendment, which would claw back not entire provisions but just this one women-only medical mandate, what do you think?

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 just do not buy his tone and message of hate and anger and discrimination.

William,

That's no problem.

How about a little rape for real at an OWS rally with the downtrodden?

There's plenty of that to be had.

:smile:

Michael

Michael, that reply is unworthy of you. I thought you were against hate, per se. Because others are despicable, does that excuse ourselves (or our spokespeople) from being the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, further good stuff in the slut's written remarks, if true:

A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. At many schools, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs.

When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are good enough and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they need these prescriptions and whether they’re lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy.

She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. She’s not here this morning. She’s in a doctor’s office right now.

Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body is indeed in early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.” Now, in addition to facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, she may never be able to be a mom.

Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not.

If this is true, it shows a kind of petty administrative/bureaucratic proceduralism has infected provision of timely medical attention, because of religious fuckhead-ism -- on the same damn campuses where everyone else, from tea lady to Ms Dean TightLips escapes this no-doubt expensive administrative control layer between them and common-sense doctoring. Is this hypocrisy or double-standard or disequity or pointless proceduralism even worth talking about in detail? Help me out with your take on this disparity.

In a perfect world, maybe, this would be settled rationally, by rational actors, if there were such things in that perfect world as Jesuit universities and such things as employer-provided medical insurance, not to mention such things a sluts with law degrees.

Michael, curious me, the plenitude of real OWS rape is topical to my concerns and questions and observations? Er ... it sounds a wee bit like

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

Maybe that questions deserves a straight-up libertarian answer in favour of every and all private employers or quasi-public employers (state-aided or regulated educational institutes) -- to offer whatever they want, even nothing, to their employers, and to refuse to pay for contraception for sluts.

In the other instance, Adam, what do you think of the looming transvaginal ultrasound mandate for women in Virginia? Nobody yet has commented on that.

And the Blunt amendment, which would claw back not entire provisions but just this one women-only medical mandate, what do you think?

William:

Given an open landscape where insurance companies can provide coverages which are menu driven, I would, as I have in the past offer health insurance on a co-op basis for my employees.

The misnamed Affordable Health Care Law is unconstitutional and should be struck down in its entirety.

From Plato's Republic through to Bismark's Germany, centralized government health insurance has been the base for tyranny and despotism.

The progressives understood it here in America.

To mandate that an individual, or a company shall purchase a product or service is tyranny.

As to the Virginia bill, I have not taken even a peek at it, but I will.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, curious me, a little real OWS rape is topical to my questions to you and others above? Er ...

William,

Sure it is.

I don't recall all this preoccupation with women's rights and so on when the rape was real and out in front of everybody. I'm only seeing all the bad vibes and suppositions galore over words and poses.

I have different priorities than that. If I'm going to think about something despicable, I think the real rapes are despicable. I recall saying so--and loudly--at the time.

But I understand. When it's class warfare, one has to excuse one's side for... er... unfortunate excesses... and remain silent...

I tried to get excited over this current manufactured tempest in a teapot about political propaganda. I swear I did. But I couldn't.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, curious me, a little real OWS rape is topical to my questions to you and others above? Er ...

I tried to get excited over this current manufactured tempest in a teapot about political propaganda. I swear I did. But I couldn't

Er, hmmmm. So, we contrast and compare rape, a true despicable crime wherever it occurs, with um, uh, hmmmm. I recall you cheering Rush's teapot whistle, cheer him on.

That was not excitement, I guess, at his ugly sentiments, but bemusement, soft demurral, chiding or silent disapproval.

It would be good to engage on the Virginia issue, Michael. It seems odd to my Canadian eyes to see this weird law mandating transvaginal ultrasound ... I expect you accept that these issues redound on the Republicans and defeat the purpose of opposing Obama's reelection. In Virginia, I mean, this pending law influences the presidential race -- the governor pushing the law is Republican, but as the Marist poll I cited showed in its snapshot, Obama would crush any of the four primary candidates in Virginia.

My point is essentially that when Republicans gather to their skirts the hard-right religious nutjobs and their churchy exclusions to secular laws they do not favour, the contrast with the mainline Democratic position becomes by default more centrist and thus more attractive on the ballot. On this particular issue, you will find that US opinion (even and especially among the Catholic, as are Gingrich and Santorum) is much more liberal than today's Republican likelies.

I will restate it and move on: Rush overboard on contraception offers the Democrats lots of hay-making, because Republicans are out of step with reality. They now risk being tainted with crotch-sniffing and trash talk and persistent attempts to control women's bits by the nutters.

On this issue, Michael, to my ears, Rush sounds crazy and Obama sounds like nice uncle Fred. It's too bad for those who want Obama out.

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

I subscribe to Limbaugh, get his letter in the mail, and listen to him a couple of times a week. I don’t think Rush thought calling a Progressive Activist a prostitute and a slut for wanting her medical expenses, including contraception paid for, would cost him seven advertisers. I agree that Rush has principles and many of those principles are backed by his religion. However, many of his principles are Libertarian principles. Look at his show’s topics to see the evidence. I am tempted to send Rush a letter, utilizing some of the letters on the thread about the separation of church and state.

For instance, George H. Smith wrote:

. . . For the third time, the Treaty of Tripoli refers to the U.S. government -- i.e., the federal government -- not to the nation. These terms did not mean the same thing during the 18th century, and they still don't. "Nation" signified a government and its citizens, i.e., both government and society.

There is no "double-meaning" involved in the statement that the "Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This is very precise and very accurate. It says nothing about the values and beliefs held by most Americans at that time, which were largely Christian. But a government administered by Christians is not the same thing as a Christian government.

end quote

That is Limbaugh’s mistake at least on this issue. Our “Nation‘s” people were and are still predominantly Christian but that is separate from our secular Constitution. Our Government is not a Christian Government. Rush was being his satiric, derisive self but he was also running interference for Rick Santorum – of that I am positive.

Peter Taylor

Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

Here is my opinion about abortion and government.

A fetus is a human being and I believe it should have legal standing as such since I believe the law governing human beings should reflect the biological reality of what humans are in identifying them.

But from the moment of conception until the moment of birth, the rights of the fetus are fully controlled by the mother. In other words, she can withdraw its right to life and abort. And only from the moment of birth does the government assume fundamental protection for its right to life. (This is the way I believe it should be.)

My reasoning for not including government protection for the fetus is not based on denying its identification as a human being, but instead as recognition that the mother's body is the life-giving vessel for the fetus and that same body is at risk, with the mother's own life in jeopardy during pregnancy. She is the biological controller of the fetus's life on a basic non-transferable level, so she should be the legal controller of the fetus's rights.

(Although technology can muddle this issue some in artificial outside-the womb growth of fetuses, I am very uncomfortable in transferring a legal right to life to a technological institution under any circumstance. So in my view, the mother does not lose her standing because of technology.)

In no instance should the government pay for abortions or contraception. This is based on my pro-libertarian small-government views, but it is also based on a legal situation. The government has no legal standing with respect to the rights of a fetus. It only acknowledges that the human being exists. So just as the government should not protect the right to life of a fetus, it should not pay for extinguishing that right. It's not the government's business to kill human beings outside of war, police law enforcement (but only in the presence of clear and present danger) and executing criminals. (As an aside, I am an opponent of capital punishment, but that's another issue.)

That's my premise. Now here you come asking me to opine on one form of government control of abortion as opposed to another form of government control of abortion.

Let's say that mandating transvaginal ultrasound is a cow. And let's say that mandating insurance companies to pay for abortions, government funding of abortion clinics, and so forth is a horse. And let's say that government involvement in these matters is dung.

You are asking me to opine about which is better, cow dung or horse dung.

You get dung no matter which you choose.

So long as the government is involved you will get mandated transvaginal ultrasounds and all kinds of crap when certain people are in power. When the power shifts and people with other views get in power, you will get mandated abortions, mandated sterilizations and all kinds of other crap.

Get the government out of this and all these questions go away on all sides.

As to the Virgina question, I have no real preference of one form of slavery over the other. It's all dung to me. I want it all to go away.

On the issue of mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds per se, I think this is a policy decision each hospital should decide for it's own practice, with "mandatory" being the requirement of a hospital that has such a policy, not a government requirement.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote:

She is the biological controller of the fetus's life on a basic non-transferable level, so she should be the legal controller of the fetus's rights. (Although technology can muddle this issue some in artificial outside-the womb growth of fetuses, I am very uncomfortable in transferring a legal right to life to a technological institution under any circumstance. So in my view, the mother does not lose her standing because of technology.)

end quote

I stress the law of identity as trumping a mother’s legal control of “fetal tissue” once the entity has begun thinking, its rights are eminently transferable. She is the mother, not the victim. Her rights derive from her being a *mother.* Just as an airline pilot may not jettison a stowaway, a mother may not jettison a thinking being without just cause. Of course, her rights in an emergency trump the rights of a baby inside her but: Once the baby is thinking it has rights. Once there is separation, a new situation involving rights arises.

I agree with the Atlas Society’s formulation of morality in this instance and The Ayn Rand Lexicon that stresses abortion is moral, for no cause, up to the end of the first trimester. That standard has been adopted in State laws, and Obgyn Teaching Hospital Ethics.

No response necessary. I just wanted to get the correct Objectivist stance out there once more.

Peter Taylor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now here you come asking me to opine on one form of government control of abortion as opposed to another form of government control of abortion.

Let's say that mandating transvaginal ultrasound is a cow. And let's say that mandating insurance companies to pay for abortions, government funding of abortion clinics, and so forth is a horse. And let's say that government involvement in these matters is dung.

You are asking me to opine about which is better, cow dung or horse dung.

No. I am not asking you to opine about which kind of dung is better. I cannot properly respond to that analogy.

I had, however, hoped you might discuss specifics of the failed Blunt amendment or/and the Virginia bill. Here is a New York Times story that caps off a long process:

Virginia Senate Passes Ultrasound Bill as Other States Take Notice

On the issue of mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds per se, I think this is a policy decision each hospital should decide for it's own practice, with "mandatory" being the requirement of a hospital that has such a policy, not a government requirement.

Yes, but do you understand how the bill speaks to women, and why they are opposed to it? This is not a medical procedure, but a political procedure. Before a woman may have an abortion in Virginia, doctors are mandated by state law to carry out a vaginal ultrasound on her and in her.

The point that I want to stress is that this is not standard medical practice in any hospital or clinic in cases of abortion, anywhere. There is no medical necessity for this, and all the medical associations have decried this part of the bill. It is seen by critics as punitive, designed to prevent or make more difficult the decision to abort.

Please have a look at the Virginia bill and its history. I think you will oppose it specifically, without making equalizing comparisons to other legislative attempts to curb women's management of their own sex organs.

I think your argument does contain opposition to the Virginia bill (though you do not make a distinction between it and any other dung-filled instrument). I am glad for that.

It occurs to me, Michael, that you like to identify first, evaluate second, judge last. I suggest that you might have made a short-cut in commentary on items of concern to women (not just sluts like Fluke).

Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I've looked at it. I'm against government forcing this procedure.

As I'm against all government involvement in abortions.

I'm also against the government forcing religious health institutions to sponsor abortions using gobbledygook and technicalities to appear like they are not.

I'm against bullshit.

I have to add all that because of the way the game of nudge is played. I'm not saying you're playing nudge, but that is the way it's played.

In NLP they call this a double-bind (I think I got that right). You get someone to choose between two alternatives, either of which gives you the thing you really want.

For example, you ask a person, "Do you want to meet on Monday or Tuesday?" To be a double-bind, you ask this when there has been no agreement to meet at all. You really want to meet the person and let's suppose he doesn't want to have a meeting with you. By asking that way, you give him the false impression that he is in control of making a choice and generally he will choose one of the days, even if he does it with a sigh. But you are the one really calling the shots as you get your meeting, which probably would not have happened otherwise.

I refuse to enter that game on this issue.

As to understanding why some women are getting upset, that's what modern propaganda is designed to do. The women (excepting the activists) are being duped into this game. When people are upset looking at one thing, they are not looking at other stuff. The military calls this a diversionary tactic. The kaboom is set up to happen somewhere else.

Are there some fundamentalist religious folks who are making this attempt in sincerity, i.e., as a way of imposing their religious views on others? Sure. But I assure you they are not the motor driving this, nor are they even in the majority. Just like the outraged women, they put a good controversial face on the public screens to enhance the diversionary tactic, probably without even realizing they are being taken on a fool's ride, too.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rush is in the corner now, vulnerable. AOL pulled from his show today. The media will not let this go right now, whatever their motivations. It could be that Rush will continue to lose advertisers who feel they must dissociate from his "choice of words" ... the seriousness of his errors are apparent so far in their damage to Republican message control. The message out there now is that Republicans are pandering and some like Rush go haywire on sex/genitals/women parts/contraception/abortion.

I say it serves the Republicans right for pandering. Now they must somehow separate themselves from the perception that they are the uptight freakshow Peikoffs in the ring for November. That could make for an Obama cakewalk. If Democrats can win a propaganda war on so-called Women's Issues, 50.1 percent of voters are more likely to be swayed their way.

This is a wedge issue now firmly lodged up the manly Republican butt, in my estimation. It does not matter who tars and who is the fiend, the perception war is at the moment lost for Rush. The taint is on.

The women (excepting the activists) are being duped into this game. When people are upset looking at one thing, they are not looking at other stuff. The military calls this a diversionary tactic. The kaboom is set up to happen somewhere else.

Kaboom. Duped in this game. Upset looking at one thing. Other stuff. Diversionary tactic. Kaboom. Kaboom.

I don't know what this means.

I've looked at it. I'm against government forcing this procedure.

[Transvaginal Virginia Express Abortion Law]

I thought so.

As I'm against all government involvement in abortions.

I thought so, and I expect this comes down to 'lady wants to abort, either find insurance that covers it, or pay it out of pocket, and go where the prices are cheapest' ...

I'm also against the government forcing religious health institutions to sponsor abortions using gobbledygook and technicalities to appear like they are not..

Hmmm. Kaboom. Gobbledygook. Technicalities.

The specifics are worth comment, I think. I cannot quite get whether or not you would grant to everyone, like Adam, as an employer or fiduciary (as with students) whatever health care packages you feel are necessary, if any.

Like Adam, you may at the same time offer to your fiduciary (say a daughter on your health-care plan) or an employee (as say, your Institute staff and faculty) a non-discriminatory policy should you choose a co-op option with these folks.

That is what I am interested in on genital issues, Michael, the grain of principles and decisions.

Are there some fundamentalist religious folks who are making this attempt in sincerity, i.e., as a way of imposing their religious views on others? Sure. But I assure you they are not the motor driving this, nor are they even in the majority. Just like the outraged women, they put a good controversial face on the public screens to enhance the diversionary tactic, probably without even realizing they are being taken on a fool's ride, too.

I just cannot quite grasp your point. I still want to know how you rank women's concerns in importance, and how you evaluate and judge the probity of particular positions and activism.

Women's reproductive organs primarily concern the holders, as with the Peikoff rape whoopup. I am only asking for a closer look at some of the ethical barbs and thorns, Michael. I do not expect you to love anything leftish or collectivish or state-mandated. I am sure glad to hear you oppose such things as transvaginal express, and still wonder what Blunt means to you.

But I will give way and agree to disagree with you on cheering Rush and dealing with the real-world political aftermath of his blunder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

William:

We shall see who is left standing as this plays out.

One correction that needs to be made. You explained that the original Issa hearing was concerning the Blunt Amendment in the Senate. That is incorrect.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot quite get whether or not you would grant to everyone...

William,

I do not consider myself qualified to grant this or that to anyone with your money. Not even through a surrogate.

I know that principle seems difficult for you to accept as a principle, but it is one of the operating principles in my thinking.

I also find it odd that you cannot grok the principle of limited government as a principle. This isn't just an opinion. It is a reality based on reasoned theory going back a few centuries that I seek to help restore.

Another, you keep asking me what women as a class should do.

I don't think about it. Literally.

I have lived my entire life doing whatever the hell I wanted to--even in Brazil. When there was a law that impeded me, I found a way around it or I left that place. (btw - Bribery works very nicely for this in Brazil.)

When someone screwed me over, I found ways to settle accounts or I walked away and crossed that person off my list. Only one of those occasions I can recall meant filing a complaint--and I did that in a very creative way that ruined the guy's business.

(I counted on police corruption to skin the dude, took my shot, and it worked. The SOB thought he was able to take my car for free on a legal technicality and I had no way out. As the car was no longer on his premises, I filed a complaint of car theft for four years prior--but not against him. I included him as a person who helped me at the time. There were some facts that backed me up, so it was not a false complaint. But as the police thought that was the weirdest complaint they ever heard, which is what I calculated they would think, they did a full investigation. I knew the guy was involved in some things he shouldn't be doing. They found out and skinned him for so much money he lost everything. Right on schedule. But it worked better than I had planned and I ended up feeling sorry for the dude. I wanted revenge, not total destruction. He even told a friend of mine, "That American friend of yours really screwed me over.")

I just don't have a mind that thinks with class action, class warfare epistemology. I'm more like Groucho Marx who wouldn't ever want to join a club that would have him as a member.

Since you prefer to mock kaboom, let's just leave it at that.

Also, I've tried, but I can't imagine Ayn Rand having any resonance with any of this government involvement in abortion stuff. Yet Ayn Rand was a woman. All she wanted was the government out of the way (as do I). She even had an abortion back in coat-hanger days. I don't think she was aware that women were not supposed to be successful in a man's world when it came time to write. And there's more, I believe she did more long-term good for women as a whole than all this class warfare stuff combined.

When I try to imagine her comments on Fluke and Fluke's earth-shattering life-devastating contraception tribulations--heh.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now...

seems like the Ivory Soap girl, Ms. Fluke, is not only an advocate for the taxpayer paying for "contraceptive coverage" as a woman's health issue, but in an article co-edited with Karen Hu, Ms. Ivory Soap, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if “gender reassignment” surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law. The title of the article . . . is “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons” and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review.

Just your typical thirty-one year old lady who just happened to stumble into the hearing room to tell her stories about the plight of her friends.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

Yeah, Fluke's fluke is no fluke after all.

I want to add something to my thoughts above. Not only do I do what I want to in life, I'm a very good person for a woman to have around if she gets attacked for real.

It's like a speculation I saw on TV where they were discussing gotcha questions during the Republican debates. They discussed how a former presidential candidate, Dukakis, sunk his campaign by his cerebral wet-noodle response to how he would feel about capital punishment if a person raped and murdered his wife. Then they imagined how Reagan would have answered. Something to the effect that the question would be irrelevant because he would take care of the SOB himself.

Call it a mindset.

The thing that galls me is that, from what i have seen in my years of experience, the class warfare folks are total wastes of time in a real emergency when a woman is attacked. You can count on them to run away (unless they're in a mob) and that's about all.

I mentioned the rapes in OWS. The rapists are not the ones who gall me (although I hold a special hell for them in my mind). The people who gall me are those pseudo-machos who let it happen right next to them and didn't waste the rapist. Not even a thought to such a thing. Don't tell me they didn't know who did it. They did. And it was one rape after another during the OWS demonstrations last year.

That's how much women's rights really mean to those people. They don't give a damn about women's rights. They want power and destruction of their targets. The women's rights thing is merely one of the props for putting on the show.

Ditto for Fluke. Her concern with women's causes is merely a show prop for a power grab.

(She was cute on The View, too, when discussing Rush and refusing to accept his apology. When asked about cases of insults to women on the liberal side--and everybody knew they were talking about Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a twat and a cunt on TV--she said it was bad, but we have to use "nuanced thinking" in those cases, or something to that effect. Real sweetheart for women's rights, that Fluke. Real trooper, she is.)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

Yeah, Fluke's fluke is no fluke after all.

I want to add something to my thoughts above. Not only do I do what I want to in life, I'm a very good person for a woman to have around if she gets attacked for real.

It's like a speculation I saw on TV where they were discussing gotcha questions during the Republican debates. They discussed how a former presidential candidate, Dukakis, sunk his campaign by his cerebral wet-noodle response to how he would feel about capital punishment if a person raped and murdered his wife. Then they imagined how Reagan would have answered. Something to the effect that the question would be irrelevant because he would take care of the SOB himself.

Call it a mindset.

The thing that galls me is that, from what i have seen in my years of experience, the class warfare folks are total wastes of time in a real emergency when a woman is attacked. You can count on them to run away (unless they're in a mob) and that's about all.

I mentioned the rapes in OWS. The rapists are not the ones who gall me (although I hold a special hell for them in my mind). The people who gall me are those pseudo-machos who let it happen right next to them and didn't waste the rapist. Not even a thought to such a thing. Don't tell me they didn't know who did it. They did. And it was one rape after another during the OWS demonstrations last year.

That's how much women's rights really mean to those people. They don't give a damn about women's rights. They want power and destruction of their targets. The women's rights thing is merely one of the props for putting on the show.

Ditto for Fluke. Her concern with women's causes is merely a show prop for a power grab.

(She was cute on The View, too, when discussing Rush and refusing to accept his apology. When asked about cases of insults to women on the liberal side--and everybody knew they were talking about Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a twat and a cunt on TV--she said it was bad, but we have to use "nuanced thinking" in those cases, or something to that effect. Real sweetheart for women's rights, that Fluke. Real trooper, she is.)

Michael

Michael:

Exactly.

It is completely beyond me how easily the "men" of the left will use women as props, but will not even break a sweat to defend them in real time.

My lady's daughter was new in NY City and needed to get her photo taken for her new job at Jet Blue. She asked me to accompany her which I did.

We were coming home through South Jamaica and stopped to pick up some Italian pastries at a special place where I knew the owner. She is a very attractive young lady and

needless to say the local hoodlum who hung around the corner of the subway approached her as I was getting the order.

I could see her stiffen and look for me. As I approached him, I quickly sized up the situation and with a hand gesture told her to go to the restaurant door. I then had a short quick "discussion"

with him and he wisely chose to abandon his quest.

I am no "tough guy," but I am NY City street smart and there are no rules when push comes to shove.

I am getting quite confident that this is going to backfire big time on O'bama and the gender feminists.

I do not know if you heard Rush's first half hour today, but it was a AAA monologue. If you have the opportunity, you should listen to it.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 humorous though I only read the text, I did not hear his tone of voice.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 humorous though I only read the text, I did not hear his tone of voice.

Carol:

She is not a "slut," but her "supporters" sure use the word a lot.

By his "second apology," you are referring to what?

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 humorous though I only read the text, I did not hear his tone of voice.

Carol:

She is not a "slut," but her "supporters" sure use the word a lot.

By his "second apology," you are referring to what?

Adam

He apologized again didn't he? I read it on the yahoo news homepage - I think! - I will check, maybe it was the first one but I was sure he said "again".

Link to post
Share on other sites

He apologized again didn't he?

According to this report he's lost 9 advertisers and is even losing stations. I'm afraid any apologies are too little, too late.

http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews

It was such a stupid and pointlessly nasty thing for him to say. It's enough to make me look back on Bill Buckley wistfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He apologized again didn't he?

According to this report he's lost 9 advertisers and is even losing stations. I'm afraid any apologies are too little, too late.

http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews

It was such a stupid and pointlessly nasty thing for him to say. It's enough to make me look back on Bill Buckley wistfully.

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 the apologies a little hard to swallow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fascinating how ecstatic some folks are by Rush's unclever blunder. Again, it rang off message and was completely below his regular satire and wit.

Additionally, it was completely off message. The Ivory Soap girl used "contraception" as a hot button code word and Rush fell for it. He went on and on about her having sex which had nothing to do with her points.

He missed the target by a mile and he used banal words which were not clever, were completely incoherent to what she was expressing and were frankly childish. It was still funny, but did not relate to the issues.

As I said above, let's see who comes out on top, now there is an inappropriate pun, in this battle.

Obama is having his first press conference in 152 days and it just happens to be tomorrow on super Tuesday. Anybody want to bet that the boy prince overreaches on this issue?

Adam

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