via @chelseagrunwald
I don’t think she’s ugly, per se. I think she looks like a Jonas Brother.
More thoughts on l’affaire Fluke, here.
Baby, you can drive my car. Yes, I’m gonna be a Czar. It’s the WOW: War on Women. Via @danriehl.
Terry O’Neill, head of the National Organization for Women, says that the Catholic bishops are “demanding that the government step in and use the force and power and police power of the state to prevent women from taking birth control because the bishops have failed.” Other groups represented at the press event where O’Neill spoke included such mainstays of the Obama coalition as NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.
Both Speaker John Boehner and White House press secretary Jay Carney have been asked to comment about Rush Limbaugh’s remarks about Sandra Fluke. Perhaps they should be asked to weigh in on O’Neill’s words too.
Karl: Look! A squirrel!
Starless on March 3, 2012 at 10:54 am said:
Ugly isn’t only skin deep.
Joy McCann on March 3, 2012 at 4:04 pm said:
Come on: they photoshopped hair onto her upper lip. The girl is perfectly attractive; the problem is that she is lying about the cost of b/c. (And/or adding in the cost of a normal gynecelogical exam to the figure, as Ace pointed out.)
Starless on March 3, 2012 at 4:56 pm said:
I was saying she’s ugly on the inside (like the opposite of “beauty is only skin deep”).
Sylvia on March 4, 2012 at 2:09 am said:
so you think rush limbaugh is attractive?
Starless on March 4, 2012 at 8:53 am said:
Rush may be a fat, pasty blowhard, the kind of guy whose appearance at a graduate mixer would make a “co-ed” like Fluke say, “Ew, gross!” but he has never demanded that the federal gov’t force the rest of us to take responsibility for his personal lifestyle choices.
A fat, pasty guy loudly telling me that my personal liberty is more important than a centrally-planned mandate is more “attractive” than a physically okay-looking woman sternly telling me that I have to subsidize her recreational activities because her gender gives her absolute moral authority over me.
Sylvia on March 4, 2012 at 11:35 pm said:
No actually, I mean the inside of limbaugh is ugly too. Anyone who has to make such vile personal attacks on anyone he hasn’t met (as you are doing too), obviously cannot make an intelligent, civilised response to her point of view.
I think her bravery, knowing that she would have to face this sort of bad taste condemnation, is admirable, and yes beautiful inside.
One day, you might understand that some people actually disagree with your point of view (which you have every right to have), and that setting rabid dogs on them like limbaugh actually creates more publicity for their cause, as well as admiration from the vast majority of Americans who prefer civilised debate to inappropriate abuse.
Dan Collins on March 4, 2012 at 11:56 pm said:
For my part, I think she’s a liar and a put up job. Her ‘facts’ are ludicrous. I’d like to see the methodology and the raw data of her survey.
And let’s not forget to consider all those other ugly people like Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz whom none of you seem to hold at all accountable, just as you didn’t hold Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy accountable, just as you don’t want to be told the truth about John Kennedy.
Starless on March 5, 2012 at 9:06 am said:
No actually, I mean the inside of limbaugh is ugly too.
I know you do. All liberals do and they do so mainly because he’s had the audacity to loudly disagree with their agenda and succeeded in doing so for over two decades. They’ve called him far worse things than “slut” and even wished death upon him because every single time they’ve tried to shut him up (and they’ve spent a king’s ransom and even tried to pass a federal law in their attempt to do so) they’ve failed miserably.
I think her bravery, knowing that she would have to face this sort of bad taste condemnation, is admirable, and yes beautiful inside.
“Bravery”…right. Bravery in front of a trumped up “committee” composed of people she knows are sympathetic to her story. AFA the “bad taste condemnation” is concerned–people like her revel in that. She can now go play the victim card for her pals crying about those mean conservatives and their “violent rhetoric”.
One day, you might understand that some people actually disagree with your point of view
LOL. I’ve been arguing with people on the internet for almost as long as you’ve been alive and by now I do in fact understand that some people actually disagree with me.
as well as admiration from the vast majority of Americans who prefer civilised debate to inappropriate abuse
That’s another LOLLER. Americans don’t prefer “civilised debate”. Short of a nice, juicy sex scandal, I don’t think there’re many things Americans prefer more in public life than a political dust-up with plenty of mud thrown around.
Mr. Bizniz on March 6, 2012 at 12:07 pm said:
And Bill Mahr is someone you can take home to your Mom, right?
But the real question is would he ever date you? I mean are you a porn star? If not, your Mom is at least safe.
Enoch_Root on March 3, 2012 at 5:38 pm said:
She is a handsome woman.
DaveP. on March 3, 2012 at 10:22 pm said:
…that bad, huh?
Sylvia on March 5, 2012 at 1:27 am said:
there you go again, Dan Collins. you disagree with what she says, and so she is a liar and a put up job.
Then the assumption that because I simply point out that I don’t respect inappropriate personal abuse, suddenly I don’t want to be told the truth about John Kennedy.
Huh?
Well, let me tell you that apart from debates to be civilised, I prefer it to be logical too.
Joy McCann on March 5, 2012 at 6:22 am said:
You two are talking past each other in an annoying way.
Sylvia, how much do you think birth control pills cost annually in the average big coastal U.S. city–specifically, in Metro D.C.?
Richard McEnroe on March 5, 2012 at 10:00 pm said:
Joy, we know how much it costs in DC. Ms. 23-going-on-30-going-on-Mr. could have purchased three years of birth control for under $400 dollars.
Rocketman on March 5, 2012 at 11:50 am said:
Why, you went straight to JFK without addressing Clinton, Teddy the K, Olbermann, Schultz, et al…
It’s almost as if they’re being given a pass or something of the sort; for being part of the “correct” team. Funny how that works.
And that brave “testimony” you mentioned? It’s little more than run-of-the-mill Kabuki; the kind Democrats have engaged in since they were first shocked by losing the House of Representatives in 1994.
You see, when you don’t chair the committee, and thus aren’t able to set the agenda-as you’ve been used to, the alternative is to find some empty space, call all your compliant mouthpieces in the media, and hold a one-sided “hearing”.
That was no hearing, nor “testimony” of any sort Sylvia, it was little better than a presser to give the alphabet networks and the mainstream press an excuse to disseminate the desired progressive narrative; it was their chance to, at once, try to propagandisticly frame the HHS mandate debate as a matter of “women’s rights” and divert attention away from the real stories of the day: gas and food prices soaring, the continued high unemployment and ever shrinking workforce, the failure of Obama’s “green energy” crony connivances, and the overall failure of this administration’s economic policy.
It wasn’t “brave testimony” Sylvia, it was performance art. And a bad performance at that…
Rocketman on March 5, 2012 at 11:55 am said:
Oh, and Sylvia, I forgot one additional point.
It’s a first amendment thing, you wouldn’t understand…
Or maybe you and your fellow travelers do; and that’s why you are so desperately trying to change the subject from Obama’s tyrannical HHS proclamation to free contraception for everyone!1!!1!
Sylvia on March 5, 2012 at 5:52 pm said:
hello rocketman, where did you jet in from?
Please see my reply to gormless, whoops, I meant starless.
You have strayed from the subject of my comments. You do not know my political leanings – why do you assume you do?
Rocketman on March 5, 2012 at 6:53 pm said:
My assumptions about your political leanings comes from your willingness to give all of the heels of the progressive/Democrat persuasion a pass on their past attacks on conservative women as well as your characterizations of both Ms Fluke’s testimony as brave and the dog-and-pony show as actual hearings…
Also, your characterization of Limbaugh’s listeners as “intellectually lame”, while not applying the same appellation to the left-leaning punditocracy, was a bit of a tell.
Finally, I don’t see addressing your comment about Ms. Fluke’s appearance being “brave”, or mention of JFK, is straying from the substance of your comment since, you know, you actually wrote those things yourself.
Sylvia on March 5, 2012 at 5:48 pm said:
You see Starless, your prejudice is such that you have already assumed that I am ‘liberal’.
Nowhere have I revealed my political preferences, at no time have I said that I support the opinions of Miss Fluke. You do not know where I stand on the subject of contraception.
I have simply stated that I dislike the tactic of ‘attacking the person’ when they disagree with your viewpoint.
I said that I dislike limbaugh because he does this in a particularly abusive way.
This tactic probably works with the intellectually lame (limbaugh listeners), and those that already agree with your point of view – but not with people her prefer clarity in their thinking.
The ‘abuse the person’ tactic is actually on the same intellectual par as the schoolboy who draw moustaches on teacher’s photograph.
Starless on March 6, 2012 at 9:35 am said:
your prejudice is such that you have already assumed that I am ‘liberal’.
Yes, it must be my prejudice because statements like, “This tactic probably works with the intellectually lame (limbaugh listeners),” wouldn’t give me a clue as to where you’re coming from ideologically.
I have simply stated that I dislike the tactic of ‘attacking the person’ when they disagree with your viewpoint.
OIC. That explains why you called me “gormless”.
I have made a terrible error of presumption about you. You are a paragon of ethical and consistent behavior–oh so much more than the rest of us unreasonable troglodytes.
I will have to presume that you were equally outraged at Bill Maher, David Letterman, Ed Schultz, Kathy Griffin, etc, etc, etc, and expressed that outrage just as publicly when they’ve said even worse things about conservative women.
If you are the language and logically fallacy police (in case you didn’t know, “attacking the person” is referred to as an ad hominem attack–I know it must seem strange that someone as gormless as myself would know such a high falutin term, but there ya go–now where’s my banjo and mah spittin’ jar?), I’d recommend a visit to Michelle Malkin’s web site, she has archives of offenders you can go after.
Sylvia_is_a_democrat_plant on March 6, 2012 at 6:08 pm said:
Abuse Report Sent
Thank you for your feedback on:
http://en.gravatar.com/sylvieshere
We take our rating system seriously and will investigate the offending material as soon as possible.
Richard McEnroe on March 3, 2012 at 7:15 pm said:
Rachel Maddow is getting nervous; I’m just sayin’…
Juan on March 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm said:
Rock on, Sylvia. These people are about as mature as a 11 year old hormonal boy. Let them Photoshop a mustache on a pretty woman, that’s the depth of their argument. And just like Limbaugh, who took government help when he was broke (and later criticized poor people who received subsidy during hard times), I’m sure they’ll be looking for help when their daughters get knocked up. Oh wait, they won’t know, because their daughters will be terrified to tell them, but don’t worry, Planned Parenthood will be there to show a human, pragmatic face. BTW, the cost of birth control pills runs roughly $400/year on average. It can run as low as $160 and high as $600. The price of an unwanted pregnancy? Denial, denial, denial…
Ex green-stamp recipient, ex-pill-popper. There’s nothing worse than a reformed whore and a hypocrite who replaced his humanity with vitriol and exclusionary language. Someone didn’t love him right. Meanwhile, this dipsh*t is probably getting his Viagra paid through his insurance and has used more birth control that all of us on this board put together throughout his marriages to his four wives.
Dan Collins on March 5, 2012 at 7:00 pm said:
Listen up, chum. This is about the First Amendment. Just because you like the idea doesn’t give you a right to have other people pay for your birth control.
It’s not about Rush Limbaugh, or who called who a slut. It’s about the truth and the fundamental political charter by which we have lived for over two centuries.
Period. End of story. Why don’t you search for Limbaugh on this site, and see how many times we’ve referenced him before this?
Sylvia on March 5, 2012 at 7:48 pm said:
so let me get this right Mr ‘I draw moustaches in people’s photographs Collins’ – are you claiming that if I disagree with you, then I am infringing the First Amendment, or if I criticise limbaugh for using foul-mouthed abuse, then I am infringing the right of every American to free speech?
Please! let’s get back to clear thinking..
My single minded comments on this blog are about limbaugh’s tasteless and uncivilised personal abuse against a person he has never met, and your own petty drawing of moustaches on peoples faces in a childish attempt to diminish them, and discredit their point of view.
Dan Collins on March 5, 2012 at 8:04 pm said:
I’m sorry, but I wasn’t talking about Limbaugh. I was talking about this potted Pelosi plant.
And as for the photo, gosh that’s harsh . . . considering I said that the p-shop was just mean. I don’t suppose you’ll find anything like that done ever to a conservative woman on Google.
My point is about double standards. Why don’t you take a look at my just-posted bit on celebrated lefty comedian Louis C.K. and tell me what you think?
No, I’m not saying that if you disagree with me, you’re infringing the First Amendment at all. I’m saying that the very second clause of the First Amendment has to do with protections for freedom of religious conscience, and that the Amendment as a whole makes it clear that it’s up to government to steer clear from collision with religion, not the other way around.
I mean, Google it.
Joy McCann on March 5, 2012 at 9:39 pm said:
She’s not going to do that. Allow me:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Sylvia on March 6, 2012 at 1:30 am said:
well, I must say this, you certainly don’t have a problem with acrophobia, sitting on your high horse quoting the Constitution at me.
But why can’t you see that I have not supported (nor criticised) this woman’s argument.
My comments have all been about the viscious rants of limbaugh and his tactics of personal abuse (would you like your daughter/wife/mother to be called a slut, a prostitute, to suggest she has so much sex it’s surprising she could still walk – over a period of 3 days)?
Your own attempt to discredit her was less vicious, but still demonstrated that you preferred to discredit her on a personal level than actually discuss what this woman was saying.
Joy – I am especially surprised that you, as a woman, should support limbaugh’s hurtful sexualising of women.
Joy McCann on March 6, 2012 at 1:14 pm said:
Where on earth did you get the idea that I support what Limbaugh said, on any level? I was enraged that he did that–poor tactics, poor taste, and misogynistic to boot.
That doesn’t mean I think the Administration should be able to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights.
Sylvia on March 6, 2012 at 8:49 pm said:
Fair enough Joy, I thought you were defending limbaugh… He certainly hasn’t done the Conservative point-of-view any favours has he.
“gormless’ – yes, I called you that. naughty me, probably shouldn’t have done – espicially when you can use such big words.
.
I said that people who listen to limbaug must be intellectually lame not because of his politics, but because he is a bully, he rarely uses reasonable, sound thinking and he has a foul mouth. I really don’t think anyone with a good education would want to waste their time with him – conservative or democrat.
Incidentally, you are extremely cynical (am I allowed to say that?)
I do watch David Letterman occasionally – but he can be funny can’t he. ….
You are obviously a limbaugh fan – don’t worry about it, I forgive you
Starless on March 7, 2012 at 10:04 am said:
I really don’t think anyone with a good education would want to waste their time with him
‘Nuff said.
Hummel on March 5, 2012 at 7:02 pm said:
Doesn’t she know that you don’t need birth control for fantasizing about having sex?
jefferson101 on March 5, 2012 at 10:29 pm said:
Whatever happened to “Get your laws off my body?”
Inquiring minds want to know these things.
Whatever happened to the right of “privacy”?
But that’s OK. When these people get treated for STD’s, it’ll be in the newspaper, probably.
jasperddbagghost on March 6, 2012 at 6:01 pm said:
See, when liberals make the rules that you can say anything you want as long as you apologize, that goes both ways.
If that rule is no longer in effect, force Bill Maher off the air and make him give back the money he donated to Obama.
Starless on March 7, 2012 at 10:01 am said:
The value of Limbaugh’s error: the Prog Left has voluntarily shown the sort of pretzel logic they’ll go through to explain why they think their ideological opponents shouldn’t be allowed to speak about anything ever.
Michael Adams on March 9, 2012 at 10:45 pm said:
Mr. Limbaugh was joking about the size of Ms. Fluke’s contraception budget. If she needs a thousand bucks a year for condoms, what does this suggest? I would call a man a slut, too, if he were that excessive. In fact, I have. However, Limbaugh ought to be more careful. He knows quite well how the Left seizes on any excuse to change the subject. Conflation is one of their favorite tactics.
Remember when a Congressman shouted out “You lie!” at the very moment Obama was telling a lie, about what was in his health care takeover bill? Instantly, the chattering classes were going on about the lack of decorum, instead of the lie Obama had been telling. They could have simply cited the page and paragraph number in the bill, but that was not party line. Note, BTW that “Right Wing” Fox News did not do that, either.
Likewise, the harpies of the Left are going on and on about how the Catholic Church is trying to get the law to prevent women from using contraception. Millions of people have fallen for this latest Democrat lie. The Catholic Church has merely objected, at long last, to being required to pay for these women’s “freedom.” Somehow, we have leapt from “Get your government out of my womb!” to ” Bring the coercive power of
government to bear on anyone who will not pay for my ‘choices’.” Slut flap has allowed the weasels of the Left to wriggle away, again Bad move, Rush.
Regardless of where one stands on abortion or any other private matter, the willingness of the Obaminations to tell such blatant lies ought to show just how utterly evil they are.
Michelle on March 28, 2012 at 8:00 pm said:
Dear Mr. Adams,
First, I would just like to note that no insurance provider that I’ve ever had has covered condoms. The birth control people like Ms. Fluke are asking for are IUDs, the pill, or the patch. This kind of birth control does not change in dosage depending on the amount of sex a woman is engaging in (this is clear in her argument when she refers to the other benefits that birth control can offer–the pill is helpful for certain health conditions).
An important factor to consider in this debate is the institutions that are being required to provide insurance that includes contraception coverage for their employees. Churches are not subject to this rule. Churches aren’t required to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees or even to pay taxes. It is the church-affiliated organizations that are required to, like Catholic hospitals or universities. These types of organizations employ people of many and various religions (or who identify with no religion at all). The First Amendment rule protecting the practice of religion was written to discourage there being established any state religion (the very creation of the United States was premised on part by freedom of religion). Of course, this is not to state that they would ever (in my opinion) have agreed with religions creating their own rules within the country, ruling with independent sets of rules over peoples who do not hold those same beliefs. Also, even if some employees belong to that particular religion, if they do not ascribe to that particular rule–as is the case with so many Catholic acquaintances of mine, male and female, who do not believe that birth control violates God’s will, and that God can overcome any obstacle easily and without effort if he so wishes, and that he cannot be so easily thwarted by human efforts to deny his will. This sort of consideration, in my opinion, applies to the issue of church-affiliated organizations, which occupy a space in-between the church and the secular.
I do also believe that this sort of debate is very valuable to our country. I do not believe in either side being silenced, but rather that both should be heard, and that in this meeting both may come to some mutual understandings. This controversy has polarized viewpoints and our people, as shown in this present debate, and does not serve to bring us citizens together, but rather to perpetuate the two-party system we have that forces a national focus on “electability” (see Mr. Romney), rather than stimulating debate and the consideration of less centrist policies (the consideration by the mainstream Republicans of Mr. Santorum, for example, and the Democrats’ view of radicals like Mr. Kucinich).
The fact that Ms. Fluke has been degraded by certain media outlets and people is despicable. Although I respect Mr. Limbaugh’s right to free speech (re. his right to express his disagreement with the issue), I do not find that this means that he is free to slander (re. calling Ms. Fluke a ‘whore’ without foundation) without reproach. Mr. Limbaugh’s (and his supporters in this issue) argument for reaction to his slander as attempts to violate the first amendment has a false basis. For example, his referral to so many powerful and respectable women as ‘femi-nazis’ is an attempt to degrade their womanhood through spectacle, rather than expressing his more accurate criticisms of their opinions and actions. This type of display shows that he does not truly want to bring another view to bear on national debates, but is further attempting to polarize the nation, while his prominent place and podium allow him an opportunity conscientious conservatives would more effectively promote agendas for national reform.
I am not a leftist/Democrat nor am I a rightist/Republican, though I do tend to lean to the conservative side. Self-contradictions, immoralities, and ignorant thinking are not exclusive to any party or political leaning. I did not vote for Obama, and will not be voting for him in this upcoming election, but I will also not vote for Romney (for obvious reasons) or for Santorum (who has given me the strong impression that he will work to break down the founding fathers’ institution of the separation of the state and the church and impose his particular religious beliefs on our country).
Sylvia on March 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm said:
@michael:- “the willingness of the Obaminations to tell such blatant lies ought to show just how utterly evil they are”.
?
how on earth can I take you seriously when you are so extreme?
You are talking about your fellow Americans
calm down, draw breath, and please put logic before your prejudice.