"There are countless horrible things happening all over the world and horrible people prospering, but we must never allow them to disturb our equanimity or deflect us from our sacred duty to sabotage and annoy them whenever possible." -Auberon Waugh
Technically, a woman who expects other people to pay for her sex with people not them is not a slut. The proper term is "middle-aged bachelor's stripper girlfriend."
i really don't care about her sex life, but i will be damned if i should have to pay for her life style choices. if she wants free birth control she can keep her legs closed, otherwise take personal responsibility for her actions. the fact that she decided to attend Georgetown in order to change their healthcare policy throws everything she says out the window.
This is probably part of an active campaign strategy that has been in the works for a year. This is an easy way to keep peoples minds off of the bad economy, which they knew they would still have this year. It's also an attempt to paint conservatives into an intolerance corner. I don't think the wheel just landed on this number by chance in an election year. They are a sneaky bunch who knew they wouldn't be able to run on his record.
b) @missred: have you ever wanted to change something but didn't think you, as an individual, could make that kind of difference? She didn't hack into a school computer and raise her grades. She enrolled in a great university with the dual intention of getting a great education and putting herself in a position to influence public policy, as people do in a democracy. You can vote and leave it at that - or you can take part in the discussion.
Wow. Too early in the morning to read this whacko conspiracy crap.
I hope she sues him off the airwaves. Whoever she is, she, nor any other woman, deserves to be treated with such disrespect, and I am saddened to see other women make such awful comments. Ugh.
Kinda hard to sue Rush on this matter, thingy, when Fluke pushes her sex life onto a national forum in support of a political agenda.
No, she didn't set herself up as a slut, but she clearly laid out her personal priorities. If you think the majority of heterosexually oriented males who follow the news didn't catch that, you are sorely lacking in situational awareness.
But look at the bright side -- she'll never buy a drink in a bar again. That has to be worth something.
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something. Are Georgetown co-eds being compelled to have sex? Since when do people who engage in a purely voluntary activity have a legal claim on the taxpayer - or on a church - to foot the bill for preventing the otherwise natural consequences of that activity? That is a fatuous argument, and the venue in which Fluke chose to make her case couldn't have been less likely to lead to a (for her) successful outcome.
Here's an idea: if you're considering attending a Catholic university, perhaps foregoing subsidized contraceptives is something you should consider as a tradeoff. But of course, Fluke only chose Georgetown because she figured that her grandstanding would create the biggest impact there. The outrage is not that Limbaugh called her a slut. Fluke may not personally be promiscuous; she may be a celibate, for all I know. But she is defending promiscuous behavior, and she is asserting a woman's right to engage in a risky activity and be spared the cost associated with remediating the consequences. To me, the outrage is that someone can blithely argue that the state is justified in violating an organization's first amendment rights of conscience, and that she is fully supported in this by the President of the United States.
That's the bottom line, Paco. Why is the President Of The United States involved in this discussion?
Answer: it's a campaign ploy. And a damned cynical one. But it's strictly a political gambit, and hence questionable.
The angst over Fluke's sexual activities is secondary, although the faux outrage by the left is amusing, yet another example of how they like to frame the narrative.
But the narrative is simple: if the left wants the government out of wombs (as demonstrated here), the they should have NO connection to reproduction whatsoever.
The call for government paid for contraceptives by the same people who want their wombs "government free" is hypocritical to the extreme.
(Of course, when I say "government paid for", I really mean "tax payer supported". I'm using leftie jargon deliberately.)
The fact that students going to a very expensive college apparently can't afford cheap birth control measures emphasizes their hypocrisy and cynicism. This is just another facet of Obamacare, and the way things will be if he wins re-election.
I think we are discussing two issues. One, free birth control, of which I am for, and that includes condoms. I am willing to bet the government, ie: us, the taxpayers will not be supporting programs like WIC, where young women receive a monthly allowance for their children, the children daddy has no interest in. We (you and me) take care of those children that were. "accidents.'
The second issue is this archaic mindset that women who have sex, enjoy sex, are sluts, prostitutes...
And men, are you virgins? Unless you are having sex with each other, or with your sheep, you're having sex with a woman. Do you think her a slut? Very sad if that's the case.
No, we are discussing a single topic, thingy. That is "choice". Fluke and her allies choose a lifestyle of open sex. They want "free" birth control to do so.
But there's no such thing as "free". Someone pays the bill, sooner or later, for a product. It matters not whether we use paper currency, gold, or human sweat as the basis of measure. Someone pays. If you think it's "free", you don't understand the real problem. Or don't want to.
The thing is, they chose this lifestyle. Fine. Then they can pay the bill themselves. Contraceptives are cheap -- if women can't afford it (and The Pill comes as low as $10 a month), they have other worries besides not getting laid. Such as starvation.
And I choose to not support their life style. I really don't care if Fluke and her ilk get laid every night or not, so long as I am not required to pay for it through my taxes.
I also choose not to have the government tell me how to live. Which is what Obama is trying to do through Obamacare, as demonstrated through his open support of Fluke's attempt to get "free" contraceptives from taxpayers.
As taxpayers, we pay for things we have no choice over, every day. I don't want to pay for milk and diapers for a baby I didn't give birth to, plus there are a thousand other causes the government gets involved in, such as wars, wars that kill. maim, ruin, destroy.
Rush Limbaugh certainly has a point about government intervention, and he has every right to voice his opinion. It's the way he does it that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
As taxpayers, we pay for things we have no choice over, every day. I don't want to pay for milk and diapers for a baby I didn't give birth to, plus there are a thousand other causes the government gets involved in, such as wars, wars that kill. maim, ruin, destroy.
And so you sit back and do nothing about these issues? Somehow, I don't think so.
But you certainly imply that I should do so. Think again.
Rush Limbaugh certainly has a point about government intervention, and he has every right to voice his opinion. It's the way he does it that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Well, I'm glad that you agree with Rush about this specific issue. But his choice of words certainly got the discussion rolling, and I'm not going to complain about that. Besides, as Smitty1e puts it:
"I, for one, rejoice that Limbaugh decided to punt on the hunt for a term more blunt to describe this runt and her risible stunt. Likely a criticism shunt."
I don't agree with Rush on this specific issue, but we do need people to voice another opinion and try to keep our government accountable. I seriously doubt that Rush is the person for the job. He just says things to incite.
See, you find Smitty1E, witty. I find the comment vulgar and crude, and completely unnecessary.
It's the idea of government butting into private affairs like contraception, marriage, etc. that I find objectionable. Ms. Fluke wants the taxpayers to fund contraception, regardless of the religious beliefs of many of those same taxpayers. She chose Georgetown University for the express purpose of violating those beliefs. It doesn't make her a slut. It makes her a Marxist.
20 comments:
Technically, a woman who expects other people to pay for her sex with people not them is not a slut. The proper term is "middle-aged bachelor's stripper girlfriend."
i really don't care about her sex life, but i will be damned if i should have to pay for her life style choices. if she wants free birth control she can keep her legs closed, otherwise take personal responsibility for her actions.
the fact that she decided to attend Georgetown in order to change their healthcare policy throws everything she says out the window.
This is probably part of an active campaign strategy that has been in the works for a year. This is an easy way to keep peoples minds off of the bad economy, which they knew they would still have this year. It's also an attempt to paint conservatives into an intolerance corner. I don't think the wheel just landed on this number by chance in an election year. They are a sneaky bunch who knew they wouldn't be able to run on his record.
YoJ: Deflection and misdirection. Entirely probable.
Correction: entirely likely.
a) it's Sandra Fluke, not Sarah.
b) @missred: have you ever wanted to change something but didn't think you, as an individual, could make that kind of difference? She didn't hack into a school computer and raise her grades. She enrolled in a great university with the dual intention of getting a great education and putting herself in a position to influence public policy, as people do in a democracy. You can vote and leave it at that - or you can take part in the discussion.
Is there proof that she is a person, and that she is definitely female?
Cheers
Wow. Too early in the morning to read this whacko conspiracy crap.
I hope she sues him off the airwaves. Whoever she is, she, nor any other woman, deserves to be treated with such disrespect, and I am saddened to see other women make such awful comments. Ugh.
Kinda hard to sue Rush on this matter, thingy, when Fluke pushes her sex life onto a national forum in support of a political agenda.
No, she didn't set herself up as a slut, but she clearly laid out her personal priorities. If you think the majority of heterosexually oriented males who follow the news didn't catch that, you are sorely lacking in situational awareness.
But look at the bright side -- she'll never buy a drink in a bar again. That has to be worth something.
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something. Are Georgetown co-eds being compelled to have sex? Since when do people who engage in a purely voluntary activity have a legal claim on the taxpayer - or on a church - to foot the bill for preventing the otherwise natural consequences of that activity? That is a fatuous argument, and the venue in which Fluke chose to make her case couldn't have been less likely to lead to a (for her) successful outcome.
Here's an idea: if you're considering attending a Catholic university, perhaps foregoing subsidized contraceptives is something you should consider as a tradeoff. But of course, Fluke only chose Georgetown because she figured that her grandstanding would create the biggest impact there. The outrage is not that Limbaugh called her a slut. Fluke may not personally be promiscuous; she may be a celibate, for all I know. But she is defending promiscuous behavior, and she is asserting a woman's right to engage in a risky activity and be spared the cost associated with remediating the consequences. To me, the outrage is that someone can blithely argue that the state is justified in violating an organization's first amendment rights of conscience, and that she is fully supported in this by the President of the United States.
That's the bottom line, Paco. Why is the President Of The United States involved in this discussion?
Answer: it's a campaign ploy. And a damned cynical one. But it's strictly a political gambit, and hence questionable.
The angst over Fluke's sexual activities is secondary, although the faux outrage by the left is amusing, yet another example of how they like to frame the narrative.
But the narrative is simple: if the left wants the government out of wombs (as demonstrated here), the they should have NO connection to reproduction whatsoever.
The call for government paid for contraceptives by the same people who want their wombs "government free" is hypocritical to the extreme.
(Of course, when I say "government paid for", I really mean "tax payer supported". I'm using leftie jargon deliberately.)
The fact that students going to a very expensive college apparently can't afford cheap birth control measures emphasizes their hypocrisy and cynicism. This is just another facet of Obamacare, and the way things will be if he wins re-election.
I think we are discussing two issues. One, free birth control, of which I am for, and that includes condoms. I am willing to bet the government, ie: us, the taxpayers will not be supporting programs like WIC, where young women receive a monthly allowance for their children, the children daddy has no interest in. We (you and me) take care of those children that were. "accidents.'
The second issue is this archaic mindset that women who have sex, enjoy sex, are sluts, prostitutes...
And men, are you virgins? Unless you are having sex with each other, or with your sheep, you're having sex with a woman. Do you think her a slut? Very sad if that's the case.
No, we are discussing a single topic, thingy. That is "choice". Fluke and her allies choose a lifestyle of open sex. They want "free" birth control to do so.
But there's no such thing as "free". Someone pays the bill, sooner or later, for a product. It matters not whether we use paper currency, gold, or human sweat as the basis of measure. Someone pays. If you think it's "free", you don't understand the real problem. Or don't want to.
The thing is, they chose this lifestyle. Fine. Then they can pay the bill themselves. Contraceptives are cheap -- if women can't afford it (and The Pill comes as low as $10 a month), they have other worries besides not getting laid. Such as starvation.
And I choose to not support their life style. I really don't care if Fluke and her ilk get laid every night or not, so long as I am not required to pay for it through my taxes.
I also choose not to have the government tell me how to live. Which is what Obama is trying to do through Obamacare, as demonstrated through his open support of Fluke's attempt to get "free" contraceptives from taxpayers.
As taxpayers, we pay for things we have no choice over, every day. I don't want to pay for milk and diapers for a baby I didn't give birth to, plus there are a thousand other causes the government gets involved in, such as wars, wars that kill. maim, ruin, destroy.
Rush Limbaugh certainly has a point about government intervention, and he has every right to voice his opinion. It's the way he does it that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
As taxpayers, we pay for things we have no choice over, every day. I don't want to pay for milk and diapers for a baby I didn't give birth to, plus there are a thousand other causes the government gets involved in, such as wars, wars that kill. maim, ruin, destroy.
And so you sit back and do nothing about these issues? Somehow, I don't think so.
But you certainly imply that I should do so. Think again.
Rush Limbaugh certainly has a point about government intervention, and he has every right to voice his opinion. It's the way he does it that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Well, I'm glad that you agree with Rush about this specific issue. But his choice of words certainly got the discussion rolling, and I'm not going to complain about that. Besides, as Smitty1e puts it:
"I, for one, rejoice that Limbaugh decided to punt on the hunt for a term more blunt to describe this runt and her risible stunt. Likely a criticism shunt."
I don't agree with Rush on this specific issue, but we do need people to voice another opinion and try to keep our government accountable. I seriously doubt that Rush is the person for the job. He just says things to incite.
See, you find Smitty1E, witty. I find the comment vulgar and crude, and completely unnecessary.
Okay, I've had my say. Enjoy the day, JeffS.
I seriously doubt that Rush is the person for the job. He just says things to incite.
Which describes Fluke as well. Not to mention Obama.
Thanks for the thoughts, thingy. I am enjoying my day. Have been for hours.
It's the idea of government butting into private affairs like contraception, marriage, etc. that I find objectionable. Ms. Fluke wants the taxpayers to fund contraception, regardless of the religious beliefs of many of those same taxpayers. She chose Georgetown University for the express purpose of violating those beliefs. It doesn't make her a slut. It makes her a Marxist.
Studying to be an attorney, correct?
Court is in session, could have a whole new meaning.
The implications of a bailiff or court officer announcing..All Rise.
Whoa..
The OED defines 'slut' as: a woman who has many casual sexual partners.
It defines 'whore' as: a prostitute. a promiscuous woman.
Mzzz. Fluke fits both definitions.
Post a Comment