Obama on Rush and Fluke: I don’t like to see private citizens insulted for speaking up

posted at 4:50 pm on March 6, 2012 by Allahpundit

He’s fine, of course, with private citizens being attacked by his own campaign if it helps squeeze extra cash out of liberal suckers obsessed with the “Kochtopus.” Granted, you can’t compare Fluke to the Kochs because they have endless resources at their disposal to fight back whereas she only has the Democratic establishment/major media eager to use her as a martyr for O’s “war on women” messaging in the fall, but what about, say, Joe the Plumber? Jonah Goldberg looks back:

You may recall that when Joe Wurzelbacher was approached by Barack Obama entirely accidentally, he became something of a political celebrity for having a philosophical disagreement with the president over spreading the wealth around and all that. Before long, the mainstream press went to battle stations to discredit the man. He didn’t even have a plumber’s license! (didn’t need one in Ohio). He had financial problems! He was a fraud! An astroturf plant! Blah blah blah. The Democrats, likewise, were unrestrained in their efforts to ridicule the man. Here’s Joe Biden ridiculing Wurzelbacher (and offering a tendentious argument about taxes)…

When average citizens are thrust into the political debate, they are heroes — if they confirm prevailing liberal arguments. When they run against the grain of the preferred narrative, they are ground down, caricatured, and treated to corrosive media skepticism.

On her Facebook page, Palin wonders re: Bill Maher, “Pres. Obama says he called Sandra Fluke because of his daughters. For the sake of everyone’s daughter, why doesn’t his super PAC return the $1 million he got from a rabid misogynist?” Well, we know why. I confess, after years of “teabagger” snickering, grotesque fingerpointing over the Tucson shooting, and most recently the high-fiving on Twitter over Breitbart’s death, it’s increasingly difficult to blog about these sporadic “civility” lectures. What’s left to say? They’re frauds. They care about “tone” precisely to the extent that it can be exploited to electoral advantage and no further. To write about it even to dump on them for it is to give them more credit than they deserve. Any questions?

Note the exchange at the very end here, too. If you can’t decipher all of it, John McCormack has a transcript. Turns out when O’s asked to critique right-wing rhetoric, he can muster a few thoughts, but when it comes time to weigh in on the “war on women” schtick being pushed by Debbie “New Tone” Wasserman-Schultz, suddenly he’s not in the business of arbitrating. Again, any questions?

Update: Commenters remind me that I forgot this golden moment of healing. At the rate we’re going, the DNC will end up turning that into an ad before the campaign is over.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

My real problem is I can no longer use the sl… word, the n word, the c word, the b word. Heck, I’ve lost 40% of my vocabulary.

rjoco1 on March 6, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Here is a depressing question I have been pondering lately:

If we were able to nominate a perfect conservative standard bearer with a flawless record who makes no unforced errors, has no baggage, and can beautifully articulate an air-tight case against Obama are we sure we could win? Or is the American electorate to dumbed down, dependant, and diseased to absorb any point of view not hand fed them by the MSM, academia, the entertainment industry? How much has the electorate degraded since the last time a Republican president was elected in 2004? When I look around, I’m thinking a lot.

Sorry, not trying to out-Eeyore everyone’s favorite Eeyore, but the question has been weighing on my mind.

Kataklysmic on March 6, 2012 at 5:02 PM

that is a great question! the important thing is that is that this nominee would have to not only be an articulate conservative with a flawless record, but they need to have the courage and skill to- what i always say- call obama and the media out on their bs. the nominee will only win if they expose media bias and double standards. the nominee needs to be strong, loud, and bold because they need to fight hard against the media’s, and pop culture’s, powerful distortion machine. if they don’t, you’re right: americans will be brainwashed/tricked into falling for obama again.

The answer is not to complain about the double standard. It ain’t going nowhere. What we need to do is throw their hypocrisy in their faces at every opportunity and never be afraid of fighting back.

Doughboy on March 6, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Sachiko on March 6, 2012 at 6:17 PM

why the fluke is even contraception an issue?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Because Obama is trying violate the 1st Amendment?

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Testified before congress about womens’ health, which conservatives somehow equate with promiscuity. And what’s her fraud now? Try making some sense.

Constantine on March 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Her “concerned student” shtick. She’s a professional agitator, bro.

Meanwhile, Joe The Plumber committed the grave offense of…actually talking to Obama!

It’s okay, though. As always, your willful blindness is a source of mild hilarity.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 6, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Testified before congress about womens’ health, which conservatives somehow equate with promiscuity. And what’s her fraud now? Try making some sense.

Constantine on March 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Er, no. Ms Fluke did NOT testify before Congress. She spoke before Maerose Prizzi’s kaffe klatsch and did not do so under oath.

And, by the way, the Democrats have lied about there being no women on the real panel that really testified before Congress.

The hollering harridans walked out before Dr. Laura Champion and Dr. Allison Garrett testified. They wanted to create an issue:

“Republicans won’t let young co-ed testify and only allows men to discuss female reproductive health, blah, blah, blah.”

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Testified before congress about womens’ health, which conservatives somehow equate with promiscuity. And what’s her fraud now? Try making some sense.

Constantine on March 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM

First, she misrepresented who she is. She’s a 30 year old radical with a history of activism

Second, she said women were unable to obtain birth control to treat medical conditions. She lied. Not only does the Catholic church have no problem with that, Georgetown doesn’t either.

Lastly, she misled about her agenda. It’s not to provide women whose medical conditions require birth control, it was to lobby Congress to force Georgetown to violate their own beliefs and views and violate the 1st Amendment.

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:20 PM

I refuse to lose my Christianity over this…..however difficult it is becoming on this thread. You are so obtuse. It is not a red herring when Ms Fluke’s other pet policy is to demand gender reassignment coverage. As to the plastic surgery coverage “red herring”….check out Buffalo public schools! Full coverage for plastic surgery in a district that graduates less than 50%. How much longer for it to cover Gender Studies majors and 30 year old 3rd year law students?

hoosierma on March 6, 2012 at 6:07 PM

demand gender reassignment coverage? it seems idiotic for people to ask mandatory coverage of such stuff, but its not idiotic to demand coverage of contraception that most people do use. fluke, was a tempered, soft spoken activist that measured her congressional remark carefully to bolster her contraception cause. Rush took her congressional testimony and called her a slut?!?
and this is what we are discussing here! this is why we are hearing the president zero talk about this issue!

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Testified before congress about womens’ health

Constantine on March 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Because women aren’t healthy unless they spend at least $1000/year on birth control?

malclave on March 6, 2012 at 6:21 PM

CycloneCDB on March 6, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Sorry, verbaluce, but this was hilariously true.
Impressive insight CycloneCDB.

jazzuscounty on March 6, 2012 at 6:23 PM

RJ advocates concentrate on the realization of the rights to have a child, to not have a child, and to parent the children we have.

Nathor, so what do you think the chances are that Sandra Fluke and her friends at the Law Students for Reproductive Justice have ever advocated for the right of a man not to have his child aborted without his consent, or alternatively the right of a man not to have a child and be forced into indentured servitude, or the right of a man to have custody of his children?

I understand that in your universe and that of Sandra Fluke, men have no reproductive or parental rights. I also understand that the Komen/Planned Parenthood brouhaha and now this ginned up contraception issue shows just how much some women act like they’re still in junior high, intent on showing the unpopular kids their place, and how much they embrace the notion of chivalry, that women must be protected from the coarse language of political conflict.

Boys are taught from their earliest days to restrain their natural inclinations to be violent and later, promiscuous. Girls are never taught that they have any natural inclinations that must be harnessed. In fact, females’ inclinations to control and manipulate are often cultivated by adult women in their lives.

Can you even spell misandry?

rokemronnie on March 6, 2012 at 6:25 PM

demand gender reassignment coverage? it seems idiotic for people to ask mandatory coverage of such stuff, but its not idiotic to demand coverage of contraception that most people do use. fluke, was a tempered, soft spoken activist that measured her congressional remark carefully to bolster her contraception cause. Rush took her congressional testimony and called her a slut?!?
and this is what we are discussing here! this is why we are hearing the president zero talk about this issue!

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:21 PM

For the last time why do you support ObamaCare? Why do you support the government mandating anything a private or religious organization should provide?

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:25 PM

And to think that the little chippie is a law student!

Gordy on March 6, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Has anybody floated this??

….crr6 was in law school…was a leftist tool…made about as much sense as this cow…..

crr6 = Fluke??

She didn’t get the hammer did she???

BigWyo on March 6, 2012 at 6:26 PM

why the fluke is even contraception an issue?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Because Obama is trying violate the 1st Amendment?

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:17 PM

as you know, I have my doubts about this violation. but lets says its true, why to fight this fight on a issue that is mostly consensual? after all, contraception is used by a large majority of women! pick this fight on issues social cons have the upper hand, such as abortion.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Uh, yeah, like you said in the very first line–Oblowhard doesn’t like it unless he’s the one doing it cuz he’s so squeaky clean and perfect!

stukinIL4now on March 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM

demand gender reassignment coverage? it seems idiotic for people to ask mandatory coverage of such stuff, but its not idiotic to demand coverage of contraception that most people do use.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:21 PM

It is when there is a First Amendment right of free exercise of religion that you would toss of ash heap of history. The First Amendment doesn’t just protect majorities and what everyone likes. In fact, one could say that the real impetus behind the First Amendment was to protect minority beliefs or speech that was offensive. There would be no need for protections from the government if “everybody was doing it and they voted for it” or if they spoke in politically correct terms.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Aren’t whistle blowers private citizens who are speaking up? Does this mean Obama will drop his assault on them?

multiuseless on March 6, 2012 at 6:31 PM

as you know, I have my doubts about this violation. but lets says its true, why to fight this fight on a issue that is mostly consensual? after all, contraception is used by a large majority of women! pick this fight on issues social cons have the upper hand, such as abortion.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM

If birth control is already used by so many women why the hell are they forcing a relgious organization to provide it?

It’s cheap, and available … that’s why anyone who wants it is already using it.

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:31 PM

crr6 = Fluke??

She didn’t get the hammer did she???

BigWyo on March 6, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Believe it or not, crr6 didn’t care for abortion.

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:32 PM

as you know, I have my doubts about this violation. but lets says its true, why to fight this fight on a issue that is mostly consensual? after all, contraception is used by a large majority of women! pick this fight on issues social cons have the upper hand, such as abortion.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Because it isn’t about contraception. The issue has never been about contraception. It is about freedom and the power of government.

“First the government mandated A and I said nothing because it was “mostly consensual.”

Then, the government mandated B and I said nothing because it barely a majority supported it.

Then, the government mandated C and I said nothing because about 1/3rd of the population supported it and I didn’t want to rock the boat.

Then, the government mandated D and I was outraged, but the Constitution was gone and there was nothing left for me to do, but remain the little sheeple that I had become long ago.”

Furthermore, do you understand that the mandate applies to more than contraception?

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Believe it or not, crr6 didn’t care for abortion.

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:32 PM

So which side of this circus do you think she’d cheer for??

BigWyo on March 6, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Pffft!

Does Obozo, the Liar In Chief really believe anyone has forgotten what was said about “Joe the Plumber”???

Obozo sure didn’t seem to mind “private citizens” being lambasted then!

Not only that, but why does almost everything he says sound so condescending!?

KMC1 on March 6, 2012 at 6:34 PM

For the last time why do you support ObamaCare? Why do you support the government mandating anything a private or religious organization should provide?

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:25 PM

you know me, I dont support obamaCare, but I just cannot be convinced of the folly of obamacare with this religious freedom arguments.

this is how you do it:
http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-tells-piers-morgan-the-contraception-mandate-is-silly/

injecting contraception that is widely used by the majority of women into this obamacare argument might rally the socons to be even more against obamacare, but its turning off everybody else.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:35 PM

its not idiotic to demand coverage of contraception that most people do use

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:21 PM

So change insurance plans, or companies if necessary.

malclave on March 6, 2012 at 6:36 PM

For those who care – about America, truth and the depths that the Dems will stoop to to steal an election, please read this article. It points out the lies and read it carefully – there are many lies that haven’t even begun to be noted on or reported on Ms Fluke and her DNC agenda driven rampage against Georgetown Law and more importantly the Constitution.
Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate

From the article:

Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that’s relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university’s insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.

Read this, reread this and remember this in Nov.

And the author knows of what is written – SHE received her JD from Georgetown Law in 1989.

jackal40 on March 6, 2012 at 6:37 PM

I don’t know what it is with today’s society and politics, but it’s completely messed up. Somebody needs to right the wayward ship. You know what I’m saying! We’re starting a movement over here. Everybody start doing what you gotta do and don’t let these demonic people tell you what’s right and what’s wrong in politics, and tell you, you know, who’s the best and who’s not the best candidate. Everybody stand up and do what you gotta do. Join with us and help us because together we can still turn the tide no matter who is President, but we’ve gotta BUILD that MOVEMENT and we’ve gotta do it NOW!!

apocalypse on March 6, 2012 at 6:38 PM

as you know, I have my doubts about this violation. but lets says its true, why to fight this fight on a issue that is mostly consensual? after all, contraception is used by a large majority of women! pick this fight on issues social cons have the upper hand, such as abortion.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM

There are lots of medications not covered by insurance policies – depending on the policy you have. So what? You can’t mandate that every organization provide insurance for everything possible – weel you shouldn’t although that’s apparently what you libtards are aiming for.
So you fall back on “used by a large majority of women”. Again so what? That means it’s already readily available for most people. I didn’t see any men testifying that they want someone else to pay for their condoms – why not cover those too?
But if your concern is that someone else must pay for anything and everything a person needs or even wants, then how about water, food, electricity, cigarettes, alcohol, medicinal MJ…..
I like a bit of medicinal wine, beer or tequila to relax after work Why should I have to pay for those myself?

Hell, why not just make everything free and have the benevolent gubmint pick up the tab? Wouldn’t that just be a wonderful utopia? And how realistic is that?

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2012 at 6:42 PM

So is Rush now and government official or something? I was under the impression he was a private citizen too.

MikeA on March 6, 2012 at 6:42 PM

So which side of this circus do you think she’d cheer for??

BigWyo on March 6, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Who knows. I could never tell.

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:45 PM

injecting contraception that is widely used by the majority of women into this obamacare argument might rally the socons to be even more against obamacare, but its turning off everybody else.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:35 PM

This is about religious organizations. Medicaid pays for BC for low income women. Everyone else buys it. There is no reason or justification to mandate raising insurance costs to provide something everyone already has.

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:47 PM

WTF!?!? really!!!! If small government is what we fight for, then, WTF was these last weeks?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Why are you siding with the government when it pertains to religious organizations then?

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Because it isn’t about contraception. The issue has never been about contraception. It is about freedom and the power of government.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 6:33 PM

I agree!
for example, I hear ron paul talking about it and it convinces me:
http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-tells-piers-morgan-the-contraception-mandate-is-silly/

however, the last weeks, I have heard:
1) santorum defending the immorality of contraception(and a bunch of other social issues)
2) the catholic church demanding exceptions to the obamacare law that themselfs supported. meaning, the church real thoughts are, we like statist mandates, but we like them done according to our moral rules. *puke*
3) rush limbaugh calling the contraception activist sluts and prostitutes and many of our mindless HA residents followed him like lemmings.

WTF!?!? really!!!! If small government is what we fight for, then, WTF was these last weeks?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:50 PM

So is Rush now and government official or something? I was under the impression he was a private citizen too

He hasn’t been treated like a private citizen by the media since Clinton was in office. Remember, Clinton making jokes about Rush.

earlgrey133 on March 6, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Unless they “speak up” against him and his administration . . . then it’s a whole new ball game.

rplat on March 6, 2012 at 6:51 PM

There are lots of medications not covered by insurance policies – depending on the policy you have. So what? You can’t mandate that every organization provide insurance for everything possible – weel you shouldn’t although that’s apparently what you libtards are aiming for.
So you fall back on “used by a large majority of women”. Again so what? That means it’s already readily available for most people. I didn’t see any men testifying that they want someone else to pay for their condoms – why not cover those too?
But if your concern is that someone else must pay for anything and everything a person needs or even wants, then how about water, food, electricity, cigarettes, alcohol, medicinal MJ…..
I like a bit of medicinal wine, beer or tequila to relax after work Why should I have to pay for those myself?

Hell, why not just make everything free and have the benevolent gubmint pick up the tab? Wouldn’t that just be a wonderful utopia? And how realistic is that?

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2012 at 6:42 PM

I agree!
for example, I hear ron paul talking about it and it convinces me:
http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-tells-piers-morgan-the-contraception-mandate-is-silly/

however, the last weeks, I have heard:
1) santorum defending the immorality of contraception(and a bunch of other social issues)
2) the catholic church demanding exceptions to the obamacare law that themselfs supported. meaning, the church real thoughts are, we like statist mandates, but we like them done according to our moral rules. *puke*
3) rush limbaugh calling the contraception activist sluts and prostitutes and many of our mindless HA residents followed him like lemmings.

WTF!?!? really!!!! If small government is what we fight for, then, WTF was these last weeks?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:52 PM

So I guess the treatment that Joe the Plumber got was OK ’cause he was insulted by Obama’s minions not him directly.

Brian Mallard on March 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM

I need regular doses of dihydrogen monoxide or I get bad headaches and could potentially die. Problem is the gubmint makes me pay for it on my own and my health insurance doesn’t cover it – in fact the supplier increases the cost on me if I use too much – as a result I pay over $3000 a year for it. So I want someone else to pay for it, and they should because it’s a health issue – in fact since my wife also needs it to stay healthy and alive, that makes it a women’s health issue, so it should be covered.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:52 PM

You agree? I don’t think you understand a word I wrote.

I won’t defend the Catholic church at all in this since they have heavily supported Dems for decades and now they’ve finally figured out they’re getting screwed in return – reap what you sow.
But this is about government forcing religious organizations to violate their doctrine and policies and even though I’m atheist myself, I see a problem with that because it’s not just the religion part of the 1st Amendment. We’re all affected badly by government mandates on anything we MUST buy.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Why are you siding with the government when it pertains to religious organizations then?

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:49 PM

we discussed this already,you know that I think strongly about secularism. It deeply annoys me that some groups, just because of their religion, get a pass on laws that everybody else has to obey.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Why, oh, why couldn’t all this have happened last November, in time for the 2nd Annual Los Angeles Limerick Fest?

(…clears throat… )

There was a young coed named Fluke,
Whose last name they say rhymes with truck.
She refused to pay bills
For her birth-control pills,
Saying, “Fluke! Let the taxpayer get stuck!

de rigueur on March 6, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Obama on Rush and Fluke: I don’t like to see private citizens insulted for speaking up

So maybe you should shut you pie-hole, you SCoaMF POS.

Sporty1946 on March 6, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Her “concerned student” shtick. She’s a professional agitator, bro.
Good Solid B-Plus on March 6, 2012 at 6:17 PM

First, she misrepresented who she is. She’s a 30 year old radical with a history of activism
Second, she said women were unable to obtain birth control to treat medical conditions. She lied. Not only does the Catholic church have no problem with that, Georgetown doesn’t either.
Lastly, she misled about her agenda. It’s not to provide women whose medical conditions require birth control, it was to lobby Congress to force Georgetown to violate their own beliefs and views and violate the 1st Amendment.
darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:20 PM

from WaPo:

Sandra Fluke, a third-year student at Georgetown Law and past president of the school’s Students for Reproductive Justice group.

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. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

You’re the classic Hot Air demo… so well misinformed I can only conclude you stick to conservative blogs and news sources.

Constantine on March 6, 2012 at 7:04 PM

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Please do not give them any more ideas. You did make me laugh tho so thanks

Grunt on March 6, 2012 at 7:05 PM

This is about religious organizations. Medicaid pays for BC for low income women. Everyone else buys it. There is no reason or justification to mandate raising insurance costs to provide something everyone already has.

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 6:47 PM

no, this is about the pharmaceutical lobby selling more high end BC and paying up the dems for this good work. but hey, Obamacare is loaded with such bonus to big pharma!
I know you imagine some religious persecution everywhere. I dont. I think our politicians, both dem and repub are corrupt bastards that distract us with social issues while the rob us blind. this is why the libertarian ideology appeals to me and why it can and will be a winner someday,like it was with reagan! reagan words:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:06 PM

we discussed this already,you know that I think strongly about secularism. It deeply annoys me that some groups, just because of their religion, get a pass on laws that everybody else has to obey.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:00 PM

So, you don’t think much of OUR Constitution then. Please leave.

Sporty1946 on March 6, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Testified before congress about womens’ health, which conservatives somehow equate with promiscuity.

Constantine on March 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM

She’s a fraud. She wanted to be seen as some poor college co-ed who was having trouble making ends meet, rather than the activist she really is with an agenda. Her sole purpose of going to that school was to stir up controversy, not get an education. Since when has getting laid become a “women’s health” issue? Dolt.

chewmeister on March 6, 2012 at 7:07 PM

WTF!?!? really!!!! If small government is what we fight for, then, WTF was these last weeks?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I wrote a long post, but it got lost in the ether. Anyhoo, it has ALWAYS been about small government. I am a LIBERTARIAN for a reason.

Ms Fluke seeks to use the power of government to force individuals and groups to act as she wants and pay for those things that she believes are “necessities.”

I believe in the power of people and markets, not government.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 7:12 PM

You agree? I don’t think you understand a word I wrote.

I won’t defend the Catholic church at all in this since they have heavily supported Dems for decades and now they’ve finally figured out they’re getting screwed in return – reap what you sow.
But this is about government forcing religious organizations to violate their doctrine and policies and even though I’m atheist myself, I see a problem with that because it’s not just the religion part of the 1st Amendment. We’re all affected badly by government mandates on anything we MUST buy.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2012 at 7:00 PM

I think strongly about secularism. It deeply annoys me that some groups, just because of their religion, get a pass on laws that everybody else has to obey. Apart from that, I am absolutely for less goverment and we should rail against obamacare with libertarian arguments, not with religious, moralistic or debatable 1st amendment arguments.
and for sure not not calling our opponents sluts!! that is just immensely idiotic!

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:13 PM

we discussed this already,you know that I think strongly about secularism. It deeply annoys me that some groups, just because of their religion, get a pass on laws that everybody else has to obey.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Well, it has only been that way since the beginning of the country. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Supreme Court has ruled against you. If the Santeria can slaughter their chickens in a fashion that would send Michael Vick to prison and escape any punishment solely because they killed the birds in the context of a religious ritual, then you are going to just have to accept that free exercise of religion means something and the First Amendment does, in fact, create an exception to the Equal Protection clause.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM

religious, moralistic or debatable 1st amendment arguments.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:13 PM

It’s not debateable, it’s clearly spelled out.

and for sure not not calling our opponents sluts!! that is just immensely idiotic!

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Tell that to Bill Maher and David Letterman.

chewmeister on March 6, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Well, it has only been that way since the beginning of the country. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Supreme Court has ruled against you. If the Santeria can slaughter their chickens in a fashion that would send Michael Vick to prison and escape any punishment solely because they killed the birds in the context of a religious ritual, then you are going to just have to accept that free exercise of religion means something and the First Amendment does, in fact, create an exception to the Equal Protection clause.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM

I disagree with that santeria veredict, and I hope those religious exceptions be the rare.
ok, lets await the verdict of the courts.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I disagree with that santeria veredict, and I hope those religious exceptions be the rare.
ok, lets await the verdict of the courts.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Step away from the ethor. You make no sense. On the one hand you talk about a libertarian approach and small government, and then you show a complete lack of reading comprehension. Learn English if you want to make comments regarding the Constitution. It is plain as day –

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.

Sporty1946 on March 6, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I wrote a long post, but it got lost in the ether.

I use firefox and pressing back, it mantains what I wrote in the form! :)

Anyhoo, it has ALWAYS been about small government. I am a LIBERTARIAN for a reason.

Ms Fluke seeks to use the power of government to force individuals and groups to act as she wants and pay for those things that she believes are “necessities.”

from the moment a goverment mandates health insurance, there would be a discussion on what should be mandated or not. of course! and in this perspective, if most people do use contraception, then of course it should be there. in makes sense from a statist perspective.
I assume that fluke is a liberal and she is also for obamacare, but, she is arguing for the inclusion of contraception in obamacare without religious exceptions, not for obamacare itself. her arguments are quite ok from the statist perspective.

I believe in the power of people and markets, not government.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 7:12 PM

me too.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Condom Man calls Joe the Plumber and all those who have acted stupidly, to tell them their parents are very proud of them!

KOOLAID2 on March 6, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Step away from the ethor. You make no sense. On the one hand you talk about a libertarian approach and small government, and then you show a complete lack of reading comprehension. Learn English if you want to make comments regarding the Constitution. It is plain as day –

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.

Sporty1946 on March 6, 2012 at 7:32 PM

its not that simple and I was replying to someone that I had a long discussion with about this theme.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:39 PM

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:39 PM

It is that simple – if you understand English.

Sporty1946 on March 6, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Tell that to Bill Maher and David Letterman.

chewmeister on March 6, 2012 at 7:19 PM

so they call conservatives sluts, so we have to do it too? not only that, we have to make it repeatedly, several times a day, for 3 days in a row, without any convincing comic context?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

I disagree with that santeria veredict, and I hope those religious exceptions be the rare. ok, lets await the verdict of the courts.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Lukumi Babulu is a 1993 ruling and it has not been weakened. In fact, it is stronger today than it was then. Religious people have rights in America and you are just going to have to accept it.

What I don’t think that you understand is that the Establishment Clause was written to prevent the Federal government from creating a national church like the Church of England. (In Sweden, today, people still must pay national church taxes regardless of their religion or lack thereof.) The State of Massachusetts had a state church until 1833. The “wall” of separation between church and state was not even recognised by the Supreme Court until 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

The Framers intended that religion be protected from the state. They did not want the government involved in the church. You have to understand that a lot of the grounds for the First Amendment can be traced back to the English Reformation and the hideousness of the Tudors and then the English Revolution and Cromwell. All throughout this time, the King/Queen (and then Cromwell) WAS the church. One day, Edward VI is King and extreme Protestantism is the rule. The next day (well 9 days later, but that’s another story and several heads and battles later), he’s dead and his bitter, barren, bytch of a sister Mary becomes Queen and she’s a Catholic. One day, belief in transubstantiation will get you roasted at Tyburn. The next day, failure to believe in transubstantiation will get you roasted at Tyburn.

By the times the Pilgrims came to America, England had been convulsed by religious upheaval and drenched in blood for so very long that people wanted to be able to practise their faith without the threat of being drawn and quartered. They didn’t want priest holes or to have to pay fines if they failed to attend Sunday services, as was the case during Cromwell’s reign.

The histories of the terror of government in religion was passed on to families and the Framers were acutely aware of the not-too-distant hell that had existed and wanted to prevent it from occurring again.

The arguments about whether the Founders were deists or whatever or are rather silly because the fact of the matter is that all of them were more religious than society is today. It was part of life and religious institutions were involved in politics. For a great example of this, see the 1800 Presidential election and the hyperventilation from the pulpits.

PS: A verdict is delivered by a jury. A ruling is rendered by a court.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 7:47 PM

It is that simple – if you understand English.

Sporty1946 on March 6, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Justice Scalia explained:

We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. “Laws,” we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

Id. at 166-167.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a

valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); see Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, supra, 310 U.S. at 595 (collecting cases).

Justice Scalia reminded his fellow justices of the Court’s 1982 decision in United States v. Lee, where Amish plaintiffs protested having to collect taxes for Social Security, since they didn’t believe in government support programs as a matter of conscience. In that case, Chief Justice Burger (mmm … burger …) explained for a unanimous Court:

The obligation to pay the social security tax initially is not fundamentally different from the obligation to pay income taxes; the difference — in theory at least — is that the social security tax revenues are segregated for use only in furtherance of the statutory program. There is no principled way, however, for purposes of this case, to distinguish between general taxes and those imposed under the Social Security Act. If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.

He adds:

Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

Resist We Much made some arguments against these scalia quotes that are pertinent, however, just to prove to you that is not that simple.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM

nathor,

Just after you arrived, during the last registration, someone ask you if English is your first language. You responded in the affirmative.

I do not believe you.

Yoop on March 6, 2012 at 7:50 PM

…and yet President Hypocrit sat there and LAUGHED when Wanda Sykes said she hoped Rush Limbaugh got cancer and died, at last year’s Correspondents dinner.

rayra on March 6, 2012 at 8:00 PM

I don’t like to see private citizens insulted for speaking up, unless its some white cracker like Joe the Plumber dissing me.

Roy Rogers on March 6, 2012 at 8:00 PM

And that political whore Fluke quit being a ‘private’ person when she let herself be stoff up as a stooge for the Obamunists putsch for socialized medicine. She makes herself a legitimate target.

rayra on March 6, 2012 at 8:01 PM

The arguments about whether the Founders were deists or whatever or are rather silly because the fact of the matter is that all of them were more religious than society is today. It was part of life and religious institutions were involved in politics. For a great example of this, see the 1800 Presidential election and the hyperventilation from the pulpits.

PS: A verdict is delivered by a jury. A ruling is rendered by a court.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 7:47 PM

ok, its understood and I very much agree. However, ignoring the american legal arguments, do you believe that religious practice, by rule, should always get an exception from common laws?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Why, oh, why couldn’t all this have happened last November, in time for the 2nd Annual Los Angeles Limerick Fest?

(…clears throat… )

There was a young coed named Fluke,
Whose last name they say rhymes with truck.
She refused to pay bills
For her birth-control pills,
Saying, “Fluke! Let the taxpayer get stuck!

de rigueur on March 6, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Ahem..

A Georgetown law student named Sandra,
Gets chipper at the sound of a zipper,
But you better not tarry
Or you’ll run into Barry
Who wants to see Sandra the Stripper

Roy Rogers on March 6, 2012 at 8:05 PM

nathor,

Just after you arrived, during the last registration, someone ask you if English is your first language. You responded in the affirmative.

I do not believe you.

Yoop on March 6, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Sometimes I cannot understand what I myself just wrote, especially when I’m tired. I think something and write another word with a similar sound and for that I think I get these comments sometimes… sure, dont believe me. why you care anyway?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Resist We Much made some arguments against these scalia quotes that are pertinent, however, just to prove to you that is not that simple.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Yes, my arguments against the Scalia quotes from Smith are:

1. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was passed in response to Smith because of bipartisan outrage to the decision. It passed the House, which Democrats controlled, unanimously. It passed the Senate, which Democrats controlled, 97-3. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

2. Church of Lukumi Babulu superseded Smith.

3. Smith did not involve telling a religious organisation that it must violate basic tenets of its faith.

4. The Restoration of Religious Freedom Act of 1993 was upheld in Boerne v. Flores in 1997 as to the Federal government. It was overturn on Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, grounds as it pertains to the states SOLELY because of an enforcement.

5. Quoting a case that is no longer good law makes no more sense than someone pointing out quotes that they think are “pertinent” from Dred Scott, Plessy, or Bowers.

Congress and the Court has since “refudiated” Smith. Justice Scalia himself voted FOR the Santeria.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 8:08 PM

ok, its understood and I very much agree. However, ignoring the american legal arguments, do you believe that religious practice, by rule, should always get an exception from common laws?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Always? No. I have explained the strict scrutiny standard to you many times. It is the standard that the government must meet before rights guaranteed in the Constitution can be taken away or infringed upon and it is the most difficult, as it should be.

Human sacrifices, child brides, etc., would never be permitted in the US nor should they. Mandating religious institutions pay for Ms Fluke’s contraception and her friends’ sex reassignment surgeries are not going to survive the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Human sacrifices, child brides, etc., would never be permitted in the US nor should they.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 8:09 PM

I’m not against pushing a mass quantities of libs into Kilauea to appease the volcano gods.

Call it “urban renewal”

Roy Rogers on March 6, 2012 at 8:12 PM

I’m not against pushing a mass quantities of libs into Kilauea to appease the volcano gods.

Call it “urban renewal”

Roy Rogers on March 6, 2012 at 8:12 PM

low quality sacrifices do not appease the gods!

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Hey rjoco1, let me help you out on recovering some of your lost vocabulary.

Slattern will nicely replace the “s” word

Cow can replace the “c” word

Vixen will fill in for the “b” word

I’m having trouble with the “n” word. Anybody have any ideas? I thought of “niggardly”. While not anywhere near the meaning of the lost “n” word, it will upon hearing, still upset most people.

SpiderMike on March 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

so they call conservatives sluts, so we have to do it too? not only that, we have to make it repeatedly, several times a day, for 3 days in a row, without any convincing comic context?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

You’re missing the point. The left (you) does it all the time and gets a pass on it. A conservative makes a comment, and all he!! breaks loose. And what’s this we stuff? You got a mouse in your pocket?

chewmeister on March 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

I think strongly about secularism. It deeply annoys me that some groups, just because of their religion, get a pass on laws that everybody else has to obey. Apart from that, I am absolutely for less goverment and we should rail against obamacare with libertarian arguments, not with religious, moralistic or debatable 1st amendment arguments.
and for sure not not calling our opponents sluts!! that is just immensely idiotic!

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 7:13 PM

And you don’t see the disconnect in what you just said? The problem is not with religious organizations getting a pass – the problem is with the government implementing those laws in the first place. You can’t say you’re for less government and continue to support the very intrusive laws that make it BIG government.

While religious organizations are fighting this birth control mandate on 1st Amendment grounds – which is a perfectly valid argument – the basic fact remains that the government should not be mandating any of this crap for anyone. Religious conservatives are just going after it with the strongest argument against it based on their biggest concern – it makes them violate their religious doctrine – which is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2012 at 8:20 PM

low quality sacrifices do not appease the gods!

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Call it a “start”

Roy Rogers on March 6, 2012 at 8:21 PM

‘Nite all. :-)

Resist We Much on March 6, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Bill Maher ‏ @billmaher
Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout

7:18 PM – 6 Mar 12

Did it just get colder outside?

LoganSix on March 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM

You’re missing the point. The left (you) does it all the time and gets a pass on it. A conservative makes a comment, and all he!! breaks loose. And what’s this we stuff? You got a mouse in your pocket?

chewmeister on March 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

so I dont automatic protect rush, so I am the left? bah!
dont protect rush with to quoque arguments.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Bill Maher ‏ @billmaher
Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout

7:18 PM – 6 Mar 12

Did it just get colder outside?

LoganSix on March 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM

he is afraid that this will spill on him :)

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Did it just get colder outside?

LoganSix on March 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Washington Caps by 6 in Hades.

Roy Rogers on March 6, 2012 at 8:30 PM

it seems idiotic for people to ask mandatory coverage of such stuff, but its not idiotic to demand coverage of contraception that most people do use. fluke, was a tempered, soft spoken activist that measured her congressional remark carefully to bolster her contraception cause.

This is easily the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time . . . but it does explain everything about your position.

Under this rationale, what else should be covered? Toothpaste? Everyone used that (well almost). Anti-perspirant? More people use that than contraceptives (thankfully). What about water, gasoline, natural gas, electric? Oh, and food, let’s not forget food. I’m fairly certain everyone uses that.

And aren’t all of these thing necessary for “good health?” So . . . under the Fluke Paradigm, all of these things should be paid for by someone else. Correct?

Post again when you can articulate a rational defense of Fluke’s position.

EdmundBurke247 on March 6, 2012 at 8:34 PM

You’re missing the point. The left (you) does it all the time and gets a pass on it. A conservative makes a comment, and all he!! breaks loose. And what’s this we stuff? You got a mouse in your pocket?

chewmeister on March 6, 2012 at 8:18 PM

so I dont automatic protect rush, so I am the left? bah!
dont protect rush with to quoque arguments.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I change my mind, going after maher can actually work. send mails to hbo, requesting him to be dropped. he is an idiot as rush anyway.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 8:35 PM

nathor,

Just after you arrived, during the last registration, someone ask you if English is your first language. You responded in the affirmative.

I do not believe you.

Yoop on March 6, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Sometimes I cannot understand what I myself just wrote, especially when I’m tired. I think something and write another word with a similar sound and for that I think I get these comments sometimes… sure, dont believe me. why you care anyway?

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Your witness, counselor.

Yoop on March 6, 2012 at 8:38 PM

I just saw that 22 sponsors pulled out on Rush. My mother in law is asking me why those republicans called that nice girl on the view a whore. I dunno. This lib media is far more powerful than I ever imagined. I thought they showed their power before by getting this fraud elected but, OMG, with the worst economy, worst energy policy, and worst foreign policy since Carter, Barry still has 50% approval and Romney barely matches up against him. The hippocracy with this Fluke thing is just too much for me to bear. It’s truly unjust and infuriating. I can’t take it. Wake me up when November ends.

ghettogasman on March 6, 2012 at 8:46 PM

I just saw that 22 sponsors pulled out on Rush. My mother in law is asking me why those republicans called that nice girl on the view a whore. I dunno. This lib media is far more powerful than I ever imagined. I thought they showed their power before by getting this fraud elected but, OMG, with the worst economy, worst energy policy, and worst foreign policy since Carter, Barry still has 50% approval and Romney barely matches up against him. The hippocracy with this Fluke thing is just too much for me to bear. It’s truly unjust and infuriating. I can’t take it. Wake me up when November ends.

ghettogasman on March 6, 2012 at 8:46 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73675.html

27… and counting.
nevermind the lib media, your mother in law is right, and you should not let your political views blind you from reprehensible behavior by pundits from your political colors.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 9:04 PM

27… and counting.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 9:04 PM

But wait! It gets better!
Limbaugh’s response to the mass exodus of advertisers is essentially: Let ‘em go! I’ll get more. The message to new advertisers being, you’re expendable; I can toss you away like a used tissue.

This just keeps getting better and better!

chumpThreads on March 6, 2012 at 9:12 PM

nevermind the lib media, your mother in law is right, and you should not let your political views blind you from reprehensible behavior by pundits from your political colors.

nathor on March 6, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Fluke lied to the democrats in Congress, and to the public. Misrepresenting herself and lying are much worse than being called a slut.

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Obama doesn’t like to see private citizens insulted for speaking up?

Uhh, Dimbo, do you mean private citizens like Rush and Joe the Plumber?

Or do you mean that little Political Commissar that was part of Comrade Pelosi’s minstrel show?

it seems idiotic for people to ask mandatory coverage of such stuff, but its not idiotic to demand coverage of contraception that most people do use. fluke, was a tempered, soft spoken activist that measured her congressional remark carefully to bolster her contraception cause.

Most people use toilet paper and Starbuck’s Coffee, does that mean that insurance needs to pay for it?

As for Ms. Flake’s “testimony,” I’ll bet that most people have no idea of what she actually said. She read her “prepared” testimony (I have to wonder who prepared it). She had a litany of claims about the lack of contraception coverage from various people that all were, though students of one of the best Universities, unable to speak for themselves.

As was noted elsewhere, this was not an actual Congressional Committee but a gaggle of partisan Democrats making a government paid Campaign commercial.

The Democrats pulled the person that they had scheduled to appear before the actual Committee and substituted Ms. Flake after the deadline for submitting witnesses. This allowed them to lament the onesidedness of the Committee, stage their own little Kabuki theater and allow Ms. Flake to avoid being put under oath.

The important thing for them was to generate the headlines, if anything said turns out not to be true? Oh well, no one will notice.

schmuck281 on March 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM

—- “Obama on Rush and Fluke: I don’t like to see private citizens insulted for speaking up”

+0

minnesoter on March 6, 2012 at 10:25 PM

This just keeps getting better and better!

chumpThreads on March 6, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Take it easy chumpy. You wouldn’t want to show yourself as a poor sport, would you?

VengeanceIsMine on March 6, 2012 at 11:03 PM

You cant tell me Obama doesnt know how full of spindly, mud colored, turds he is….

You have to be virtually pathological to spew that garbage, after having Joe the Plumber publicly destroyed for asking a question that made you look bad.

alecj on March 6, 2012 at 11:09 PM

I sent the following suggestion to SarahPAC via the online form:

Suggestion: Have Ms. Palin and Ms. Bachmann hold a joint press conference (possibly invite Laura Ingraham), play back Obama’s press conference comments about his concern his daughters aren’t insulted for political involvement, then play Bill Maher’s comments about them, add those from MSNBC hosts, like Ed Schultz, then point to the intense hypocrisy, and finally request return of Maher’s contribution to Obama. Fight back in other words. And help Rush too.

Allendundit on March 7, 2012 at 1:04 AM

didn’t read any of the article – just the headline.

He may not like to see people insulted, but he sure like to verbally assault them.

“He acted stupidly”

Oh he whom never speaks poorly of others.. Were I only fit to wash your feet while you perch upon your Pharaohs throne.

hoakie on March 7, 2012 at 1:27 AM

What about Joe the Plumber, Mr. Obama? Hmmmmmmmmm?

captn2fat on March 7, 2012 at 2:02 AM

RJ advocates concentrate on the realization of the rights to have a child, to not have a child, and to parent the children we have.

Nathor, so what do you think the chances are that Sandra Fluke and her friends at the Law Students for Reproductive Justice have ever advocated for the right of a man not to have his child aborted without his consent, or alternatively the right of a man not to have a child and be forced into indentured servitude, or the right of a man to have custody of his children?

as a man, I think its silly to force a woman to carry the child if she decides to abort in early pregnancy. after all, its her body.
regarding the “indentured servitude”, I agree that no men should be forced to support the child if the man is proven not to be the father. we have the technology to make those tests now. if he is proven to be the father, and the woman wants to keep the child, then yes, the man must support her. … just an opinion…

I understand that in your universe and that of Sandra Fluke, men have no reproductive or parental rights. I also understand that the Komen/Planned Parenthood brouhaha and now this ginned up contraception issue shows just how much some women act like they’re still in junior high, intent on showing the unpopular kids their place, and how much they embrace the notion of chivalry, that women must be protected from the coarse language of political conflict.

we do have some parental rights, but its also true that historically and by nature laws, women have more responsibility and affinity to raise children. There is a limit to where sex equalization can go on this. The other point is, if we do want more children, there should be a measure of support for motherhood in the society. How this plays with my libertarian ideals, to be honest, I have not figured out yet.

Boys are taught from their earliest days to restrain their natural inclinations to be violent and later, promiscuous.

really? where? my son is 3 years old and we already ask him who is his girlfriend at kindergarden and we are proud in a silly kind of way when he says some girl is his girlfriend. regarding violence, my boy is bigger than all the kids in his class, so I am afraid he becomes a bully, apart from that, I am very proud he pushes back if bullied.
latter in life, we promote controlled violence in sports like football. I think in putting my son into some martial sport. definitely not in ballet or something.

Girls are never taught that they have any natural inclinations that must be harnessed. In fact, females’ inclinations to control and manipulate are often cultivated by adult women in their lives.

where? my daughter is not yet 1 year old and she already has dolls and a play kitchen, because my wife says girls love that stuff. I just wanted to buy her lego(the pink one, silly father)…

Can you even spell misandry?

rokemronnie on March 6, 2012 at 6:25 PM

you see me like, as rush says, a “feminazi” supporter. those extreme characters are rare and hardly representative of the female gender.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 5:44 AM

Fluke lied to the democrats in Congress, and to the public. Misrepresenting herself and lying are much worse than being called a slut.

darwin on March 6, 2012 at 9:44 PM

because people lie and Misrepresent themself, we can then called them sluts? this is inane! if rush was pointing out the lies and misrepresentations of fluke without calling her a slut and claiming men where lining around the block to have sex with her, he would still have sponsors and he would not have hurt social conservatives causes, conservatives and the gop in general by association. he is an idiot!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 5:54 AM

chumpThreads on March 6, 2012 at 9:12 PM

The Love Song of Saul Alinsky

Roy Rogers on March 7, 2012 at 6:01 AM

Obama doesn’t like to see private citizens insulted for speaking up?

Uhh, Dimbo, do you mean private citizens like Rush and Joe the Plumber?

Or do you mean that little Political Commissar that was part of Comrade Pelosi’s minstrel show?

tu quoque argument on this will only partially excuse the exaggerated rhetoric from rush. I saw some video compilation with the 53 attack rush did in 3 days against fluke. I want to defend rush, but its really inexcusable. the dems will slaughter us on this. I am ditching rush on this… he is under my bus.
however, I already see some fear by maher… maybe some pressure campaing on hbo can wield results?

it seems idiotic for people to ask mandatory coverage of such stuff, but its not idiotic to demand coverage of contraception that most people do use. fluke, was a tempered, soft spoken activist that measured her congressional remark carefully to bolster her contraception cause.

Most people use toilet paper and Starbuck’s Coffee, does that mean that insurance needs to pay for it?

no, silly argument.

As for Ms. Flake’s “testimony,” I’ll bet that most people have no idea of what she actually said. She read her “prepared” testimony (I have to wonder who prepared it). She had a litany of claims about the lack of contraception coverage from various people that all were, though students of one of the best Universities, unable to speak for themselves.

the dems prepare her, sure, and she was very disciplined keeping herself to the script.

As was noted elsewhere, this was not an actual Congressional Committee but a gaggle of partisan Democrats making a government paid Campaign commercial.

they all do those stuff. its is just a media circus.

The Democrats pulled the person that they had scheduled to appear before the actual Committee and substituted Ms. Flake after the deadline for submitting witnesses. This allowed them to lament the onesidedness of the Committee, stage their own little Kabuki theater and allow Ms. Flake to avoid being put under oath.

I know…

The important thing for them was to generate the headlines, if anything said turns out not to be true? Oh well, no one will notice.

schmuck281 on March 6, 2012 at 9:49 PM

sure, agree, but none of that excuses rush behavior.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 6:03 AM

Was SCoaMF insulting his opponents for sucking on a (cucumber) while opining for the stupid?

chumpThreads on March 6, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Like I was sayin’…

MNHawk on March 7, 2012 at 7:28 AM

I don’t like to see private citizens insulted for speaking up

Only when they’re lying liars who are promoting your agenda, right?

disa on March 7, 2012 at 7:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4