The latest push in the War on Women . . .

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Indeed. It's why I put go vice versa. We are in agreement on this.

I just get disgusted too easily at those who don't look at the conduct as being wrong but rather who is doing it.

But we all do it.

NPR had a story on that this morning. Scroll down a bit in the link to the part just after the poll question to read about how we see others, both those on our "side" and those on the opposing side. Identical behavior is viewed differently depending on who's side the actor is on.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[wmw999 2,456]

OMG -- you mean that hussy has opinions??? Who gave her permission for that?

Her previous "activism" was mostly in the area of domestic violence. And she probably went to Georgetown because it offered her the best combination of financial aid and good schooling.

I did some reading in Wikipedia (including the talk section, where people discuss the merits of the article -- that's where disagreement and arguments go). I'll say that her statement that 40% of Georgetown students struggle financially because of contraception is, um, a little disingenuous (it probably reflects that 40% of Georgetown students have to actually think about the cost of contraception, and make decisions based on that cost).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We won't even get into what's been said about Sarah Palin and other female politicians by left-wing commentators. Most lefties at least on this site agreed with these slanders but now get all indignant about this. Really, the hypocracy is dripping into a puddle on the floor.

Or what has been said about Obama and Pelosi by the right wingers.

However, Palin, Pelosi and Obama put themselves up there for comment, and have their own pulpits for response. Limbaugh's attack on a student was in a different class altogether - LOW CLASS.

I don't disagree that the words Limbaugh used were uncalled for. However to claim that it's OK to attack someone using vile language because they have the pulpit to respond is low class, too. To title a thread like this one in light of the attacks on Bachmann, Palin, Ingraham, O'Donnell etc. is the height of hypocrisy. I can understand why you feel the need to defend it considering you are one of the most guilty parties on this website.

Funny that you've missed the many rather vile attacks on Pelosi from the RWCs. Look in the mirror if you want to see hypocrisy.

Fact is, Pelosi, Palin, Obama... have set themselves up as public figures with the full knowledge that they would have enemies who vilify them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,456]

Ya know -- I just noticed that Gravitymaster is objecting to the attacks on Rosie O'Donnell -- I think that counts as taking up for a liberal

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[muff528 3]

Quote

OMG -- you mean that hussy has opinions??? Who gave her permission for that?

Her previous "activism" was mostly in the area of domestic violence. And she probably went to Georgetown because it offered her the best combination of financial aid and good schooling.

I did some reading in Wikipedia (including the talk section, where people discuss the merits of the article -- that's where disagreement and arguments go). I'll say that her statement that 40% of Georgetown students struggle financially because of contraception is, um, a little disingenuous (it probably reflects that 40% of Georgetown students have to actually think about the cost of contraception, and make decisions based on that cost).

Wendy P.

Well, like I said ....nothing wrong with activism or having opinions. My opinion is that her cover story (about enrolling at Georgetown for quality of education, etc.) is BS. I simply don't believe her. My opinion, based on what little research I've done about her previous activism, is that she enrolled in Georgetown expressly to challenge their contraception policy. Just to be clear, I certainly would not deny a person's right to access contraception. But, I do think that it should not be covered by an insurance program ....especially if the provider of that program ...the entity paying for it... has conscientious objections. The drugs (and other methods) are available elsewhere, sometimes for free or for very little cost. I don't think that Georgetown is banning the use of contraceptives by its students. (I may be wrong here and its irrelevant and none of my business anyway). I do think contraceptives should be covered if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition ...but then it would not be a "contraceptive" per se. It would be "medication" for that condition. I don't consider fertility a "medical condition" requiring insured medication. My opinion, of course. I am also against insurance coverage for Viagra, etc. BUT, My Opinion again, this is not about contraception. It is about the intrusion of the federal government into the private affairs of an institution and the attempt to mandate a socio-political agenda that is contrary to that institution's own freedoms and rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. She could go to Columbia and fit right in with like-minded folks. If it is her intent to change the beliefs and social mores of Georgetown University she is going about it the wrong way. The correct way would be to follow Obama's lead in his dealings with the Islamists and strive to be concessional and apologetic while trying to win her adversaries' hearts and minds. In my opinion, of course.

[wmw999 2,456]

Quote

My opinion, based on what little research I've done about her previous activism, is that she enrolled in Georgetown expressly to challenge their contraception policy

What research indicates that??? She's not a first year student as far as I can tell, and it looks as though Georgetown has her as specializing in something they think is worth highlighting. Since her previous specialty is human trafficking and domestic violence, activism against the Catholic Church's contraception policy sounds a little outside the box.

Georgetown is rather well known for their public policy specialization; it's in Washington, after all. Would you feel constrained from expressing your opinion if you'd gone to college that had some stuff you disagreed with? I wouldn't. I don't think many people are 100% aligned with any institution.

She's local to Washington DC, and she happened to notice that there were hearings in something that she has an opinion on (I'll grant you she has an opinion ), and she probably thought somethnig on the order of "gee -- as a law student in public policy, what a great way to practice what I'm supposed to be preaching, and maybe just toot my horn for future employment as well." And, frankly, I'm not sure I see a problem with that -- isn't that what we want of citizens?

Do some actual research before going into such detail on others' motivation. It is unlikely to change your opinion, but at least it will give some credibility.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,006]

>My opinion, based on what little research I've done about her previous activism,
>is that she enrolled in Georgetown expressly to challenge their contraception policy

Given that she worked on ending human trafficking in Kenya and represented women in domestic violence cases while at Georgetown that would be a little hard to support. And given that she worked on stuff like that _before_ entering Georgetown, it's not like she suddenly decided to become an activist when she got there.

(Unless her detractors claim that she did all that as a clever smokescreen to hide her true intent to make Georgetown's policies into her life's battle - which is getting into tinfoil hat territory IMO.)

>She could go to Columbia and fit right in with like-minded folks.

Yes, she could - and she did. And when asked to talk about it before Congress she gave her opinion on it. And she got called a whore and a slut for doing so. That's the problem. Had she stated her opinion and Limbaugh had said "I think she's wrong. Companies shouldn't be required to support things they don't like." then there would not have been such a big stink.

[muff528 3]

Quote

>My opinion, based on what little research I've done about her previous activism,
>is that she enrolled in Georgetown expressly to challenge their contraception policy

Given that she worked on ending human trafficking in Kenya and represented women in domestic violence cases while at Georgetown that would be a little hard to support. And given that she worked on stuff like that _before_ entering Georgetown, it's not like she suddenly decided to become an activist when she got there.

(Unless her detractors claim that she did all that as a clever smokescreen to hide her true intent to make Georgetown's policies into her life's battle - which is getting into tinfoil hat territory IMO.)

>She could go to Columbia and fit right in with like-minded folks.

Yes, she could - and she did. And when asked to talk about it before Congress she gave her opinion on it. And she got called a whore and a slut for doing so. That's the problem. Had she stated her opinion and Limbaugh had said "I think she's wrong. Companies shouldn't be required to support things they don't like." then there would not have been such a big stink.

Past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice

"The question is, how do we combat this conservative opposition and oppression, in order to facilitate a discussion and educate others about the RJ movement? I am obviously not alone in facing these problems, as Sandra Fluke of Georgetown lead a packed room in a discussion on this question at the first Issue Caucus that I attended at the Leadership Institute, LSRJ’s national conference at Berkeley." Scroll down to the article entitled "Finding our footing on conservative campuses". Other interesting reading there, too.
dated 8 months ago.

She just didn't happen to bop into the congressional hearing last week because she couldn't get contraceptives and thought it would be a good way to give them her opinion.

Like I said, she does have a right to promote her agenda. Just don't do it by playing Miss Innocent and blowing smoke up folks asses. She loses a little credibility that way.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you think Obama called this college student when he didn't call Laura Ingraham when Ed Schultz called her a slut on the air?

How come you and your lefty bretheren didn't have this same outrage for Laura?

It appears the free market is taking it's course.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rush-limbaugh-loses-7th-advertiser-sandra-fluke-slut-flap-article-1.1033208

Those companies are as full of it as Rush is. They are jumping ship because its bad pr to be associated with him right now. I suspect they'll be back. If they were so concerned with his values, they wouldn't be on his show to begin with.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you think Obama called this college student when he didn't call Laura Ingraham when Ed Schultz called her a slut on the air?

How come you and your lefty bretheren didn't have this same outrage for Laura?

It appears the free market is taking it's course.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rush-limbaugh-loses-7th-advertiser-sandra-fluke-slut-flap-article-1.1033208

Those companies are as full of it as Rush is. They are jumping ship because its bad pr to be associated with him right now. I suspect they'll be back. If they were so concerned with his values, they wouldn't be on his show to begin with.

Ian

Most seem to have strong leftist ties anyway. http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/05/rally-for-rush/print They were there because they knew that advertising on Rush's show got results. It seems that, for them, profit trumps ideology.

[billvon 3,006]

>She just didn't happen to bop into the congressional hearing last week because she
>couldn't get contraceptives and thought it would be a good way to give them her
>opinion.

Of course not. She was invited because she was a recognized leader in reproductive rights who had strong opinions on the topic, and had written about them previously. It would surely be dumb to invite a random woman to testify before Congress who just "couldn't get contraceptives and thought it would be a good way to give them her opinion."

>Like I said, she does have a right to promote her agenda.

Agreed. So do her foes.

>Just don't do it by playing Miss Innocent and blowing smoke up folks asses. She
>loses a little credibility that way.

What smoke is she blowing up whose ass?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

>Just don't do it by playing Miss Innocent and blowing smoke up folks asses. She
>loses a little credibility that way.

What smoke is she blowing up whose ass?

It's going up the ass of the people too dumb to realize that these kind of hearings are very much political theater. Cast carefully chosen, testimony carefully scripted.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 3,006]

>It's going up the ass of the people too dumb to realize that these kind of hearings
>are very much political theater.

Yes, mostly they are. She is not responsible for them being dumb, any more than you are responsible for Limbaugh's words.

[muff528 3]

Quote

>She just didn't happen to bop into the congressional hearing last week because she
>couldn't get contraceptives and thought it would be a good way to give them her
>opinion.

Of course not. She was invited because she was a recognized leader in reproductive rights who had strong opinions on the topic, and had written about them previously. It would surely be dumb to invite a random woman to testify before Congress who just "couldn't get contraceptives and thought it would be a good way to give them her opinion."

>Like I said, she does have a right to promote her agenda.

Agreed. So do her foes.

>Just don't do it by playing Miss Innocent and blowing smoke up folks asses. She
>loses a little credibility that way.

What smoke is she blowing up whose ass?

Aaand ...we're back to the point I was making earlier. She is not just a student who finds herself in a financial strut because her insurance is not paying for her contraceptives. This is the original image portrayed by the media when the firestorm broke. She did say at the hearing that she was a past pres of LSRJ but this seems to have been lost in all the reporting as is illustrated in Wendy's quote: "Since her previous specialty is human trafficking and domestic violence, activism against the Catholic Church's contraception policy sounds a little outside the box."

And quoting you: "Given that she worked on ending human trafficking in Kenya and represented women in domestic violence cases while at Georgetown that would be a little hard to support. And given that she worked on stuff like that _before_ entering Georgetown, it's not like she suddenly decided to become an activist when she got there."

THAT IS MY POINT! Now it's only a small step (considering the article I cited above, re: "conservative campuses") to suspect that maybe she enrolled in Georgetown specifically to target their "Reproductive Justice" policy.

Edit to ask: Bill, by "stuff like that" did you mean the trafficking and domestic violence work or did you mean the RJ work? My response assumes you meant the RJ stuff.

[billvon 3,006]

>She is not just a student who finds herself in a financial strut because her insurance
>is not paying for her contraceptives.

Agreed. She also was working to stop human trafficking in Kenya, represented women in domestic violence cases etc.

I knew a lot of women like her in college. They'd be against the sexism inherent in the high tech workplace. Then they'd be protesting the perceived SAT bias against women and minorities. And if you brought up that the MIT health plan covered STD's but not endometriosis (to use a fictitious example) they'd be against that.

>This is the original image portrayed by the media when the firestorm broke.

I have not seen a single story that claimed she was "just a student who found herself in financial trouble because her insurance is not paying for contraceptives." Shorter stories identify her as a law student; longer ones identify her as a supporter of full healthcare coverage women. Indeed, one of the big themes was her talking about OTHER women who needed birth control coverage, including one who needed it for treatment of a serious medical condition.

Some people may read that and assume "gee, she's just trying to appear like she's in financial trouble because her insurance is not paying for contraceptives" - but as you mentioned some people are idiots. And she loses no credibility because people are idiots.

>Now it's only a small step (considering the article I cited above, re: "conservative
>campuses") to suspect that maybe she enrolled in Georgetown specifically to target
>their "Reproductive Justice" policy.

That's tinfoil hat territory, since she started in 2009. Yes, I suppose she could have enrolled three years ago thinking that someday Obama would come up with a compromise on religious exemptions to healthcare requirements that would be controversial, that she'd be rejected by the GOP to participate in a panel on the topic, that then Pelosi would invite her to speak at a separate event, and that she could then force Limbaugh into making an attack on her that would get her into the headlines. You'd have to be pretty into conspiracy theories to think that.

[muff528 3]

Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included......

........Fluke plans to continue working on the issue to ensure that the health reform regulations do eventually require Georgetown University to provide birth control to its students.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/meet-sandra-fluke-the-woman-you-didnt-hear-at-congress-contraceptives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html

So, if she researched the health plans before enrolling and found they did not meet her needs as a student, why did she decide to go with Georgetown over another school that was more suited to her needs? ...unless it was her intent to devote large amounts of her time to her activist RJ agenda against the policies of a private religious institution which is exercising its right to religious freedom? She is not denied RJ healthcare since she is free to exercise her right to attend any other law school that does pay for contraceptives. She does focus on religious universities and colleges and their health plans in her testimony before Congress. As a graduate law student, I'd think that she would have found time for her "regular" studies to be in short supply. It still appears to me that Fluke did not enroll at Georgetown University primarily for their educational program. And, there does not have to be a conspiracy for the agendas of various entities to cross paths from time to time. Like you said ...she had been involved with RJ at Georgetown for 3 years before the opportunity to address Congress about these issues eventually presented itself.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

No. What pisses off people like me is that the government is getting involved in procreation and stemming it not by providing it themselves but ordering others to pay for it.

So women don't have the money for birth control? Well, then, let's just ensure that everybody pays for it, then. I feel bad for gay men that are now put in a position of paying for birth control for others.

I don't like paying for sex. And I like it even less paying for someone else to have sex. (Note: where do AIDS activists stand on this issue of unsafe sex?)

No. What pisses off people like me is that the government is getting involved in procreation wars and stemming it not by providing it themselves but ordering others to pay for it.

So women the people don't have the money for birth control wars? Well, then, let's just ensure that everybody pays for it, then. I feel bad for gay men that are now put in a position of paying for birth control wars for others.

I don't like paying for sex wars. And I like it even less paying for someone else to have sex fight wars. (Note: where do AIDS activists stand on this issue of unsafe sex wars?)

[rushmc 23]

such a shame that this thread is labeled so falsely
You really got sucked into this one billvon

next

First off no one is denying anything to women

And since this guy gets a pass from most of you who condemn Limbaugh your comments become bad jokes at best


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/will-obama-super-pac-return-misogynist-bill-mahers-million-dollar-donation_633200.html

Remember

Limbaugh apologized for using two words only

He is sorry he lowered himself to the left’s level

Which just got lower by the way

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

a. it's a strong word regardless
b. Schultz called a public figure an unacceptable name, but in a non-sexual context (he was referring to her affinity for the right wing, not her sexual habits -- and there was no request to post pictures, thank goodness).
c. Schultz was disciplined by the network
d. Obama was the target of the criticism by Ingraham that caused the remark by Schultz; I'm sure that had he called her, it would have been the topic of her next show
e. they're all fucking radio commentators , and part of the whole reason people aren't talking to each other, saying "talk to the republican/democratic hand" instead.

Wendy P.

Fluke is a public figure

Look her up

She has been attending colleges (like the one she is in) just to take on their policies

She is an activists who is being used by the left

When they are done with her she will be treated the same a Shehan

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

We won't even get into what's been said about Sarah Palin and other female politicians by left-wing commentators. Most lefties at least on this site agreed with these slanders but now get all indignant about this. Really, the hypocracy is dripping into a puddle on the floor.

Or what has been said about Obama and Pelosi by the right wingers.

However, Palin, Pelosi and Obama put themselves up there for comment, and have their own pulpits for response. Limbaugh's attack on a student was in a different class altogether - LOW CLASS.

Student?

Fail

look her up

You have been coned like the rest of you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you think Obama called this college student when he didn't call Laura Ingraham when Ed Schultz called her a slut on the air?

How come you and your lefty bretheren didn't have this same outrage for Laura?

It appears the free market is taking it's course.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rush-limbaugh-loses-7th-advertiser-sandra-fluke-slut-flap-article-1.1033208

Given the fact he turns down millions of ad dollars every year, it mean very little

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***

Quote

Why do you think Obama called this college student when he didn't call Laura Ingraham when Ed Schultz called her a slut on the air?

How come you and your lefty bretheren didn't have this same outrage for Laura?

It appears the free market is taking it's course.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rush-limbaugh-loses-7th-advertiser-sandra-fluke-slut-flap-article-1.1033208

Given the fact he turns down millions of ad dollars every year, it mean very little

I have a hard time believing that Rush would apologize for any other reason.

I think it's great that Rush and the GOP are staying the current course, With the recent WSJ poll on declining female support for the GOP, Obama's job is getting easier and easier

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73636.html

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

***

Quote

Quote

***

Quote

Why do you think Obama called this college student when he didn't call Laura Ingraham when Ed Schultz called her a slut on the air?

How come you and your lefty bretheren didn't have this same outrage for Laura?

It appears the free market is taking it's course.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rush-limbaugh-loses-7th-advertiser-sandra-fluke-slut-flap-article-1.1033208

Given the fact he turns down millions of ad dollars every year, it mean very little

I have a hard time believing that Rush would apologize for any other reason.

I think it's great that Rush and the GOP are staying the current course, With the recent WSJ poll on declining female support for the GOP, Obama's job is getting easier and easier

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73636.html

the support reason is why this "issue" was created to begin with as Obama was losing women support a few weeks back

This is a ginned up issue that comes from no where

As for Rush?

He turned down advertising for GM

He will take no hits from this at all because his audience is his focus

Not money or advertisers

He said yesterday he lowered himself to the lefts level by using the two works when speaking of the activist Fluke

For that he was sorry

Again

this is ginned up BS to cover the failure and expansion of power of the Obama admin

If talking about women in that way REALLY was important, then Obama would give the million back

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,006]

>So, if she researched the health plans before enrolling and found they did not meet
>her needs as a student, why did she decide to go with Georgetown over another
>school that was more suited to her needs?

The first time I went to Boston, I didn't like the weather. It was raining and people told me it would probably rain for a week. The second time it was something like -10F. And apparently that wasn't unusual.

The weather sucked. And yet I went there for school anyway. Was it that I thought the school I went to was more important than weather? Or was it just in case someday I was asked to testify before Congress, I'd be able to complain about the weather?

But enough about me. What did she say about it?

"I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care."

>It still appears to me that Fluke did not enroll at Georgetown University primarily for
>their educational program.

So now she's a liar too.

I gotta say that the branding of this woman as a whore, a slut and now an activist liar is pretty par for the course for the right wing when they can't speak to the topic she is discussing. It's unfortunate she wasn't a 55 year old white male; the right wing might have actually responded to what she said.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

He will take no hits from this at all because his audience is his focus

Not money or advertisers

Could you really be that naive?