Gloria Allred to West Palm Beach prosecutor: You really should go after Rush, you know

posted at 4:15 pm on March 9, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Go figure: Gotcha lawyer Gloria Allred has proved herself more than willing to embroil herself in the controversy that continues to plague radio host Rush Limbaugh. The president of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund sent a letter to the county prosecutor of West Palm Beach, Florida, to call for an investigation into whether Limbaugh violated Florida defamation law. From TPM:

Allred cites Section 836.04 of Florida Statute, which says that “whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.”

“Mr. Limbaugh has publicly acknowledged that his reference to Ms. Fluke as a ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’ were baseless and false,” Allred writes. “In view of the fact that Mr. Limbaugh resides in your county and allegedly made the false statements concerning Ms. Fluke in your county as well, this letter is directed to your office.”

Limbaugh might have spoken falsely — in case the question lingers, Sandra Fluke is not actually a prostitute — but whether he spoke maliciously is another matter. His apology could be construed to bolster the case either for or against him. For him, in that his apology states clearly that he had no intention to cause harm to Ms. Fluke. Against him, in that his apology might be taken as evidence that he thinks he did cause harm to her — and that might be used to suggest he originally spoke with the intention to harm her.
Limbaugh’s point in calling Fluke a “prostitute” was not to discredit Fluke herself or to imply that she actually takes money for sex, but to illustrate the grubbing nature of her argument for the administration’s contraception mandate. Limbaugh’s argument was not particularly refined, but it was also not malicious in either the normal or legal sense of the word.
No matter — that I’m parsing the legal definition of malice in this case indicates just how overblown it has become. Limbaugh has become — for the time being at least — a liberal whipping boy and Sandra Fluke has become a sainted martyr.
As further proof of the latter, the PR firm of former Obama adviser Anita Dunn on Monday started to represent Fluke pro bono. The left is clearly invested in her as a campaign prop, as Bill O’Reilly explained on his program last night.

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

Gloria Allred, the famed celebrity lawyer, sent a letter to the Palm Beach County Attorney’s Office on Thursday saying prosecutors should consider a charge under an 1883 law making it a misdemeanor to question a woman’s chastity.

Allred has a license to practice law. Why does Allred not prosecute the case herself; “famed celebrity lawyer“s usually win, and scoring Rush Limbaugh should be seriously career-enhancing.
.
Perhaps Rush will ask this question on-air … and suggest that Allred come on over to Palm Beach and commence litigating … and bring her license to practice. Such a piece of paper might look quite impressive … with the right frame … over one’s fireplace …

Avenging Disco Godfather on March 9, 2012 at 7:36 PM

She’s just mad because a house fell on her sister.

faol on March 9, 2012 at 4:50 PM

thread winner

fight like a girl on March 9, 2012 at 7:48 PM

In her statement quoted on Politico Ms Allred said of Fluke: “exercised her free speech and her right to testify before congress”

Fluke was NOT testifying before Congress, she was making a statement to a small group of DEMOCRATS only, convened by Nancy Pelosi and NOT relevant to the subject of the ongoing Congressional investigation: whether the POTUS in demanding that religious organizations give contraceptives, an act which is against their beliefs, is committing an unconstitutional act.

Shut up, Allred, and go away.

EL on March 9, 2012 at 8:06 PM

If a woman who wants the public to pay for her to ride guys like Secretariat is to become the face of the democratic party, I’m all for it.

Erich66 on March 9, 2012 at 8:06 PM

sad old tit

lexhamfox on March 9, 2012 at 8:07 PM

If you look up lawyer jokes in the dictionary, there is a picture of her in there. She is the reason that lawyers are ridiculed.

ultracon on March 9, 2012 at 8:16 PM

There once was a girl named Fluke ……

pastselldate on March 9, 2012 at 8:24 PM

There once was a girl named Fluke ……

pastselldate on March 9, 2012 at 8:24 PM

There once was a girl named Fluke
And she played a good number of flutes
On her knees, on a bed or on table
Always ready willing and able…

riddick on March 9, 2012 at 8:35 PM

O/T Louis C.K. cancels on Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner

http://www.therightscoop.com/louis-c-k-cancels-on-radio-tv-correspondents-dinner/

bluefox on March 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM

I just saw that – Greta really went after ol’ Louis C.K. Good for you, Greta!

disa on March 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Dear God, please hear my prayer, and let the prosecutor take this up.

Discovery will be a b*tch Gloria.

This isn’t plaguing Rush Tina. It’s playing right into him and Levin’s trap.

SilverDeth on March 9, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Read the last line. She is not a slut, prostitute, or a whore. She is an effective advocate for her cause. Beginners luck or was an invisible hand guiding her? I think most commenters here are upset because she was so effective.

meci on March 9, 2012 at 5:27 PM

You are mistaking “upset” for laughing my ass off at Slutty McSlutty-pants. Rush is eating their lunch, he is getting huge rating out of this, several libtard companies who marked themselves for death are getting torn to shreds financially, and if this thing goes to trial, discovery is going to be must-see television as they drag all of her puppeteers in the Obama administration in front of a judge for a deposition.

The only ones being hurt by this are leftists.

I for one, shall continue to mock the little low-born whore, and shall greatly enjoy this delicious circus as it continues to explode in her and her handler’s faces.

SilverDeth on March 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

I for one, shall continue to mock the little low-born whore, and shall greatly enjoy this delicious circus as it continues to explode in her and her handler’s faces.

Huzzah.

She may not be a whore in the traditional sense of the word but in the way that Ronaldus Magnus referred to the 2nd oldest profession being much like the 1st…

Defenestratus on March 9, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Sad bat. Does she think free speech is just for Ms. Fluck?

Schadenfreude on March 9, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Let this circus go on. It’s simply delicious. Their faces will all be full of something unpleasant, soon.

Schadenfreude on March 9, 2012 at 10:52 PM

By Sandra Fluke’s math, she’s been laid about 30 times since her testimony….Surely a few other guys have come to the same conclusion that Rush did by now…? right?

******

Wrong.
Rush is wrong several ways:

1. The idea that spending $3000 over 3 or four years means a woman is having sex many times a day is ignorant and silly. Obviously the reference is to oral contraceptives. One takes oral contraceptives daily whether or not one is sexually active. The pills are effective only if you take them every day.

In other words, taking the pill every day might mean the taker is having sex twice a year, or twice a day, or never. Are none of you men familiar with this? do you have sexual partners? You appear strangely ignorant.

So, again, oral contraceptive use and the price thereof means nothing. A woman could be sexually active or not have intercourse at all. Oral contraceptives are not something you use like condoms or a diaphragm every time you have sex. You use oral contraception whether or not you have sex. Are we OK on this?

So, saying that using $3000 worth of contraception over three years means absolutely nothing, as far as frequency of sex goes.

2. “She talked about her sex life”. What’s remarkable about Sandra Fluke’s testimony is that she didn’t talk about her sex life.

At all.

Nada. Zero. Zip.

If you’re going to argue with me, quote her testimony and show me where she talks about her sex life. Let me save you some time by telling you, you won’t find it. There is nothing about her in her testimony.

I believe this is because she had prepared testimony to present to a congressional committee. She knew she would be under oath. she’s a lawyer, she knows what perjury is.

In her testimony, as opposed to Limbaugh’s fevered presentation, she never mentions her own sex life, frequency of intercourse, number of partners, inconvenience, health, whatever. The sole reference to her own life is when she states that scholarship students find the expense of contraceptives a hardship. and by the way, Fluke is a scholarship student. Note how she implies, without saying so, that she is part of this group.

But is she? far be it from me to impute sexual naivete to a worldly group such as the men of Hot Gas — but really — if this woman Fluke has ever had sex with anything other than a vibrator or another woman then I am Lady gaga.

Really — can you not tell a thirty year old closeted lesbian when you see her?

so Limbaugh is wrong twice. No wonder he has scrubbed his site of all links to “slut” and “prostitute”.

By the way, I am a woman, so don’t bother with the usual insults.

str8tface on March 9, 2012 at 11:05 PM

I’m confused. Isn’t law patronizing in and of itself? Gloria, do women need to be protected from nasty words or not. If so, why?

foreman3 on March 10, 2012 at 12:14 AM

I don’t think it can be overstated how significant this is. Ms. Allred’s hatred for Rush is so great that she’s willing to undermine a lifetime of Feminism in a futile hope of hurting him.

This type of law is completely based on the philosophy that women and men are not equal. There is no law more patronizing than this. It was created on the belief that a woman’s chastity is a matter of government concern.

And she embraces this? Wow.

foreman3 on March 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM

I don’t think it can be overstated how significant this is. Ms. Allred’s hatred for Rush is so great that she’s willing to undermine a lifetime of Feminism in a futile hope of hurting him.

This type of law is completely based on the philosophy that women and men are not equal. There is no law more patronizing than this. It was created on the belief that a woman’s chastity is a matter of government concern.

And she embraces this? Wow.

foreman3 on March 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM

You misunderstand modern ‘feminism’. It is nothing more than a way to get more radical democratics elected under the guise of women’s rights. If womens’ rights takes a hit, it doesn’t matter as long as it is good for the democratic party.

slickwillie2001 on March 10, 2012 at 12:42 AM

You misunderstand modern ‘feminism’. It is nothing more than a way to get more radical democratics elected under the guise of women’s rights. If womens’ rights takes a hit, it doesn’t matter as long as it is good for the democratic party.

slickwillie2001 on March 10, 2012 at 12:42 AM

^ This!

For further reading, see “William Jefferson Clinton.”

the feminazi’s were awful quiet when sowing his oats and using the media to destroy the women he was “sowing…”

SilverDeth on March 10, 2012 at 2:10 AM

The president of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund

Maybe the president of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense fund should ask whether or not is illegal to say the same of a man and, if it isn’t, should try to have the law struck down since it definitely does not treat women equal to men.

Theophile on March 10, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Please run with this Mr. D.A. I can’t wait to see the circus involved in proving that Ms. Fluck isn’t a slut/whore.

xblade on March 10, 2012 at 5:20 AM

Wait a minute MS Allred…

In context:

Ms Fluke was, at her choice, trotted out into the National Stage(Pelosi) to participate in a ‘National Leftist Agenda Forum(Pelosi)’ that very few were allowed to participate in and NONE to voice a counter response.

Millions of Americans disagreed with what Ms Fluke and her Leftist Agenda (Pelosi)Forum were spewing out.

Rush Limbaugh was and is the counterweight to the One-Sided “National Leftist Agenda Forum(Pelosi)”. For the millions of Americans that were denied their VOICE in a forum that affects them directly. RUSH gave them that VOICE. RUSH SPEAKS FOR THE MILLIONS that don’t agree with Ms Fluke and her leftist cronies, but have NO VOICE.

Ms Allred, you want Rush prosecuted?…Millions of IRATE AMERICANS will line up with RUSH and say “you better be prepared to prosecute the millions of US” !!! RUSH IS OUR VOICE !!

BigSven on March 10, 2012 at 6:11 AM

I sure hope they use Sandra Fluke as a campaign prop. She’s a humorless, self-righteous and angry woman. Calling her a slut and prostitute was wrong not simply because it was rude, but because how many sober, straight men would actually want take her to bed? I see her on television and I think, “Man, when did Frodo become so bitter?” Fewer women sympathize with her then the donks think, and most men I imagine can’t stand her.

EricW on March 10, 2012 at 7:01 AM

I think they should throw Gloria and Rush in jail and put them in adjoining cells. Both are attention seeking idiots using extreme causes to fill their bank accounts.

lhuffman34 on March 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM

str8tface on March 9, 2012 at 11:05 PM

She’s a ho bag who’s Parroting a liberal cause

What next?, aspirin, toothpaste, please stop

Sonosam on March 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM

They realize the clock is ticking and are pulling out all the stops.

Yeah, lets start arresting people for free speech.
Oh wait, I mean just conservatives.

JellyToast on March 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Just goes to show liberals are anti-liberal. What they hate… is looking back at them in the mirror every morning.

ray on March 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Democ*nts are circling the wagons and beginning to foam at the mouth. There’s going to be a run on Lithium at the pharmacies between now and November.

jan3 on March 10, 2012 at 9:58 AM

So, again, oral contraceptive use and the price thereof means nothing. A woman could be sexually active or not have intercourse at all. Oral contraceptives are not something you use like condoms or a diaphragm every time you have sex. You use oral contraception whether or not you have sex. Are we OK on this?

So, saying that using $3000 worth of contraception over three years means absolutely nothing, as far as frequency of sex goes.

If she is claiming to have to pay 3000 for now you say 3 years for her pills she needs to do some better shopping. Seriously. You are the one out to lunch. I still don’t need to be paying for her sex life. period. I don’t expect YOU to pay for mine. So no.. Rush is not wrong. You are.

Noelie on March 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Here is the thing with this — Rush would have to FALSELY impute a lack of chastity. Doesnt that mean that she would actually have to be chaste for this to apply for Rush to be prosecuted. Given that she was stumping for birth control I don’t think she is chaste.

This statute was probably written 100 years ago when women actually were chaste, I doubt it could be used on 99% of society today!

They would end up litigating her sexual history, I dont think Fluke would really want that.

Also, this statute runs into the first amendment pretty quickly, especially given this is highly protected political speech.

GAME OVA, Allred is a crappy lawyer PS

kmalkows on March 10, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Gloria Alred is an ambulance chaser.

lea on March 10, 2012 at 10:34 AM

“falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity”

Does Ms. Allred have evidence that Fluke is CHASTE? With a birth control bill like that, I’m kinda doubtin’ it.

HoosierHawk on March 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Everything is false flag with liberals.

1 Complete government control of the internet is NOT to stifle free speech and allow unchallenged government propaganda but to retard internet “piracy” of songs and movies.

2 Government programs to limit salt, sugar and fat content of foods is NOT to let the government intrusively control every aspect of your lives, birth to death, but to save “stupid people” from their own “vices”.

3 Government regulatory agencies and bureaus do NOT pass regulatory laws (EPA “violations”)to stifle economic growth;to turn America into a third world nation; to make Americans the ‘laughing stock” of the world; to increase governmental power exponentially; to raise the price of gasoline so egregiously that competing inefficient energy sources become economically viable; to increase the profitabilty of crooked, scheming,incompetent alternative energy companies who “only coincidentally” happen to be Democratic friends and allies-but the make the United States green and “beautiful”.

4 Government socialized medicine is NOT to meddle into the lives of American citizens-forcing Americans to buy shlock health insurance they don’t want or need; turning a tax collection agency (the IRS) into a Gestapo enforcer to punish transgressors who don’t voluntarily purchase this junk; to do a break dance on top of top of the US Constitution; to increase government power and ad millions of overpaid, incompetent “administrators” -boosting an already bloated 15.5 trillion debt.

5 Infanticide. The killing of millions upon millions of babies is NOT mass murder or even a “get out of jail free” card for swingers who like to f— and “to hell with the consequences” but, rather, a “woman’s right issue”. “It’s my body-I’ll do what i want with it, baby” ISN’T IT AMAZING THAT THE SAME GOVERNMENT THAT HAS NO CONCERN AT ALL FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS ON POINTS 1-4, USES INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM A TALKING POINT FOR MASS MURDER?

MaiDee on March 10, 2012 at 10:36 AM

You misunderstand modern ‘feminism’. It is nothing more than a way to get more radical democratics elected under the guise of women’s rights. If womens’ rights takes a hit, it doesn’t matter as long as it is good for the democratic party.

slickwillie2001 on March 10, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Indeed.

And “women’s rights” means the right to slay your unborn child. All other rights are insignificant.

Grace_is_sufficient on March 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Wrong.
Rush is wrong several ways:

1. The idea that spending $3000 over 3 or four years means a woman is having sex many times a day is ignorant and silly. Obviously the reference is to oral contraceptives. One takes oral contraceptives daily whether or not one is sexually active. The pills are effective only if you take them every day.

This is BS.

Oral contraceptives do not cost $1000/yr by any stretch of the imagination.

A Target store, 3 miles from the Georgetown campus, sells the pill for $9/mo. That would equate to $108 a year, $324 for all three years of law school. Fluke’s “testimony” was only off by 924%.

But of course this wasn’t about finding cost-effective sources of birth control – this was about how to better get the government involved in everyone’s day to day lives. Heaven forbid the free market provide a solution that is cost-effective. Where’s the socialist orgasm over that? (Pun intended)

Defenestratus on March 10, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Gloria the media Fluke

Wade on March 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM

I just saw that – Greta really went after ol’ Louis C.K. Good for you, Greta!

disa on March 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

I think we conservatives need to be careful about this. Liberals installed this fake politically correct crap to assuage white guilt and try and buy some votes. Conservatives should stick to principles and treat just everyone exactly equally. If we start firing back at people with liberal stances using the same PC crap, we are basically sucking everyone into this fake, pretending to be offended, fingerpointing world where Juan Willims is fired for just speaking truth. It leads both sides to saying things they don’t actually believe.

We should stick with just speaking truth and see where it lands us.

kmalkows on March 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM

If only Breitbart were alive to investigate this Caliclown Allredhead.

Wouldn’t it be nice to know who is paying her bills. I have a few guesses.

She’s the Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson of everything “women” now I guess.

….and just another outrageous actor on the stage as the American play “Suicide of a SuperPower” is presented before us.

PappyD61 on March 10, 2012 at 11:15 AM

BREAKING NEWS: Mitt Romneycain issues statement in 5…..4…..3…

“I’m disheartened by the continued attacks on women by those on our side and will continue to fight for those poor gals that need help. I think, yes, certainly we can look at strengthening hate speech laws and Miss Alred is right we can all be more civil in our discourse.

And I’d like to applaud President Obama from saying outrageous things and trying to set the tone for a more gentle discussion of political issues.”

PappyD61 on March 10, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Read the last line. She is not a slut, prostitute, or a whore. She is an effective advocate for her cause. Beginners luck or was an invisible hand guiding her? I think most commenters here are upset because she was so effective.

meci on March 9, 2012 at 5:27 PM

So what you’re really saying is that she’s not a sexual whore, just a political whore. Got it.

dominigan on March 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM

meci on March 9, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Neci, it doesn’t matter how much you try to brown nose her, or get in touch with your feminist side – Sandra’s not going to Fluke with you. She’s already booked up for the foreseeable future.

Solaratov on March 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Fluke is this campaign season’s “Jersey Girl”. Remember when those 9/11 wives got political? Ann Coulter reamed them a new anus and the left went bat sh*t crazy. They constantly use “victims” as political props and then act all “holier than thou” when the so-called victim is attacked and discredited by the truth-tellers. It’s the same-old okey-doke that they pull year after year. Ignore them.

Jarhead68 on March 10, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Allred, the ambulance-chasing, fame-seeking, greedy ÜberFeminazi, just has to insert herself into every situation re: an aggrieved woman. Just look at all of the sleazebags the old and irrelevant hack feels the need to defend (pro bono?). The chick, er, student, was a Leftist set-up used to denigrate people of Faith. It was not a Congressional “hearing”, therefore she willingly made a fool of herself and called her own promiscuous behavior into question. Fluke has almost as little class as Allred.

EXIT QUESTION: Why doesn’t Gloria the Grifter ever defend Conservative women and their right to speak out? Could it be that she only represents other allegedly aggrieved grifters?

Inquiring Minds Want to Know:
If the fluke ever finishes law school and passes the bar, will Gloria give her a job?

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on March 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Huh?

Pork-Chop on March 10, 2012 at 11:51 AM

@ MaiDee on March 10, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Great post.

Jarhead68 on March 10, 2012 at 12:25 PM

that statute is unconstitutional. it violates the equal protection of the laws clause because it only applies to women as a victim. by definition, a man cannot be a victim of it. it is probably ancient history and no prosecutions since the 30s…. but gloria allred doesn’t care about the law except as a tool for her political hack tendencies….

no prosecutor, except a far out lefty would touch that.

Dr. Demento on March 9, 2012 at 4:39 PM”

i nailed it: By a guy named Volokh,

“2. Beyond this, the Florida criminal statute, which explicitly applies only to accusations about women and not men, almost certainly violates the Equal Protection Clause doctrine that bans most forms of sex discrimination. (See, e.g., Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan (1982).) This doctrine has long been used to invalidate laws that ostensibly favor women but are based on, and perpetuate, sex-based norms of proper behavior; and at least two cases, Ivey v. State (Ala. 2001) and Rejent v. Liberation Pubs. (N.Y. App. Div. 1994), have specifically concluded that such sex-based rules in libel law are unconstitutional — here’s what Rejent said:

It is, as one commentator has noted, ‘quite blatantly sexist and discriminatory, and is based on outmoded assumptions about sexual behavior. Sex-based classifications very similar to the ‘unchastity of a woman’ rule have been struck down by the United States Supreme Court as violative of the equal protection clause…. The Restatement (Second) takes a laudable lead in this area, modifying the traditional rule to a sex-neutral standard that renders any imputation of ‘sexual misconduct’ by a man or woman slanderous per se.

And since I quite doubt that Florida courts would be willing to cure the discrimination by broadening the criminal law to cover accusations against men — courts in most states generally aren’t allowed to essentially criminalize behavior that the legislature hasn’t criminalized — I think the Florida statute would have to be struck down as an Equal Protection Clause violation, leaving it to the legislature to decide whether to reenact a sex-neutral statute. Such a sex-neutral statute would probably be considered a constitutional criminal libel statute if limited to knowing falsehoods;Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) suggests that such criminal libel statutes are constitutional if suitably limited, and I suspect that the focus on accusations of sexual impropriety would be constitutional despite R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), because it seems unlikely to be aimed at the suppression of ideas. But it would be up to the Florida Legislature to create such a sex-neutral statutes, and not to the Florida courts to broaden it. (For an extremely rare case where a court solved a constitutional problem with a criminal statute by broadening the criminal prohibition, see People v. Liberta (N.Y. 1984), a case that was driven by felt moral imperatives that are likely not to be present here.)”

Dr. Demento on March 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Gloria Allred Seeks Rush Limbaugh Prosecution
…even the most vile lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist misogynist doesn’t have a word that adequately describes allred.

TeaPartyNation on March 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

she has demonstrated that she has no legal acumen…..

and did some idiot give her a show where she plays a judge on tv?

Dr. Demento on March 10, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Limbaugh called Fluke a slut for expecting others to pay for her promiscuity. Conservative women have been called this and much worse by liberal men for years. Allred is indignant that he’s acting like a liberal and must be punished.

volsense on March 10, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Wonder if she has to pay for it?

itsspideyman on March 10, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Gloria Allred likes going on TV. I would think that media personalities who appreciate free speech are likely to take notice that she apparently doesn’t share that view and choose OTHER guests.

Murf76 on March 10, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Send Gloria to Gitmo. Let her enjoy some sun for a while.

Robert Jensen on March 10, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I just saw that – Greta really went after ol’ Louis C.K. Good for you, Greta!

disa on March 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

I think we conservatives need to be careful about this…

We should stick with just speaking truth and see where it lands us.

kmalkows on March 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM

No, no, no!!! We need to take this chance to make them live by their own rules. Keep hammering away using the numerous examples of crude, misogynistic language on their side and make them defend it. Go after Allred and her hypocrisy – point out how she ignores Democrats in her righteous partisan hackery, find out where her funding comes from. Maher is already backing down because he sees what’s up. Keep pushing. Be Breitbart!

inmypajamas on March 10, 2012 at 7:36 PM

From Politico:
On Monday, mailings will go out to 1 million women in more than a dozen battleground states in three separate versions for mothers, young women and older women, campaign and party officials said.

An effort called “Nurses for Obama” will begin on Wednesday, with nurses nationwide enlisted to be advocates for the health care law in their communities. And a new Web site will include links to video testimonials about the health care overhaul signed by Mr. Obama in 2010, including from a former critic who subsequently was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Through the month, ending with what the campaign’s headquarters has designated a “Women’s Week of Action,” campaign field offices will organize phone banks, campus activities, house parties and media events featuring local residents helped by the law, officials say.

The campaign is trying to use the political climate to regain the traditional Democratic advantage among women, even as moderate Republican and independent women voice disenchantment with the Republican focus on social issues.

Women were always going to be a part of the re-election effort’s push, but the precision targeting has gotten, Democrats believe, an unexpected boost in the current climate, thanks to contraception, the Rush Limbaugh debate and the candidacy of Rick Santorum.

****
You know, the gender gap disappeared in 2010. Rush Limbaugh has brought it back.

I am a woman. I think Rush is a fool for attacking Fluke as a promiscuous woman, rather than as a lesbian activist.

str8tface on March 10, 2012 at 9:11 PM

I can see the opening arguments now

Judge: “What are the merits of this case?”
Alred: “Your honor Rush limbaugh unfairly maligned the chastity of Ms Fluke by calling her a slut”
Judge: “Defense what is your evidence?”
Limbaugh’s Attorney: “Your honor, Mr. Liombaugh made the assumption that any un married women who needs the government to give her 3 grand a year for condoms has enough sex to be categorized a slut”
Alred: “Your honor now the attorney must be charged. How dare he insinuate that just because a women needs to use 5,000 condoms a year that she is not chaste”
Judge: “When did I transport to a parallel un iverse that is an Orwell novel.?”

Individualist on March 11, 2012 at 12:24 AM

On a m ore serious note.

Whether or not Fluke is a sexual deviant remains to be seen however one could catgegorize her as advocasting murdering the sick.

If the government orders insurance companies to subsidize 100 million women 3 grand a year for coondoms and birth control where does she think that money comes from. That is 300 billion a year right. That means that companies will have to skimp on things like breat cancer treatments and other medical concerns that are actually real. No matter how much you spend on healthcare the fact is that there is still a limited resource. Money must be taken from one source to provide for others.

These decisions are made all the time. Insurance companies decide to not cover expensive experimental treatment so that they can provide a multitude of others. They have to do this because in the end only so much money can be paid in. Given that OBama has taken 500 billion from medicare and medicaid this is even more a problem right? So who the h3!! does Fluke think she is demanding money to be diverted to non medical matters. Who does she think should go without treatment to pay for her sexual habits. This I’d like to hear her answer.

Individualist on March 11, 2012 at 12:32 AM

2011-2012
Tuition and Fees Per Semester

So — who can afford those tuition fees??? You can’t tell me that the parents are from the ghetto.

I also did a google search for free clinics for women in the D.C. area. Pretty simple. And I didn’t go to Georgetown Law to figure that one out.

pastselldate on March 11, 2012 at 10:50 AM

She did not testify. She simply spoke to a few libtard congress people. Chairman Issa ruled she had no capability in the issue being investigated. Frankly she is irrelevant.

scboy on March 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3