Does Carly Fiorina Just Not Get It?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | March 2nd, 2012 at 10:12 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

Carly Fiorina is offended by Rush Limbaugh’s comments on Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke, who testified before Congress that she wants the American taxpayers to subsidize her sexual proclivities.

We should be insulted with Fluke, but Fiorina is insulted by Limbaugh.

“That language is insulting, in my opinion. It’s incendiary and most of all, it’s a distraction. It’s a distraction from what are very real and important issues,” said Fiorina on CBS’s “This Morning.”

Well of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. It is not something I would do and I do think we’re going to now focused on what he said for a while and that it will be a distraction from the central argument, but he was using insult and sarcasm to highlight the absurdity of Sandra Fluke and the left’s position, which in a nut shell is they think you, me, and every other American should pay for them to have sex. And while I understand people being offended, I am offended by many of these same people thinking I should be subsidizing what has, for years, been considered a consensual act.

They call it “women’s health”, but the language associated with it involves pregnancy and sex. They have, in other words, turned “women’s health” into a euphemism for having sex.

And Sandra Fluke, who spends over $50,000.00 on law school per year really believes that American tax payers should, because of her expensive law school, pay for her birth control pills so she can have sex. Not just that, she claims it costs $3000.00 over the course of law school to pay for the contraception. That’s an extraordinarily high price considering most common birth control pills can be purchased at WalMart or Target or elsewhere for vastly less. (though admittedly some cannot take the cheap pills and need the expensive ones, let’s not pretend every woman, or even a majority of women, require them)

So of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. He was using it as a tool to highlight just how absurd the Democrats’ position is on this. It’s what he does and does quite well. And in the process he’s exposing a lot of media bias on the issue as people rush out (no pun intended) to make Sandra Fluke a victim of his insults and dance around precisely what is really insulting — her testimony before congress that American taxpayers should subsidize the sexual habits of Georgetown Law School students because, God forbid, they should stop having sex if they cannot afford the pills themselves.

Suddenly, an act Democrats have said for years was private and consensual, must despite that be paid for by the American taxpayers.

BONUS POINT: Why is a person who lost a U.S. Senate campaign after sucking up vast resources from Republicans donors that could have gone elsewhere somehow made the Vice Chairman of the GOP’s Senate Campaign Committee?

Tags: Carly Fiorina, Rush Limbaugh

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

znjs

when we talk about not wanting to subsidize sex but limit it to birth control. I shouldn’t have to pay for anyone’s Viagra either. The problem with subsidizing contraceptions is the same problem with subsidizing ANY medical expenses – it isn’t our job to subsidize your lifestyle. I have the same problem with subsidizing your contraceptions as I do supporting an lazy fat slop’s medical expenses. You don’t have a right to my money to pay for your lifestyle, whatever that may be.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
sbm1

I actually went over to cspan to see what she said.

It was your typical false premise, followed by sob story stuff.

She put that “which as you know can cost up to $3000 over 3 years” number out there…and when I check walmart I see birth control for $9 a month…..but then as any good soon to be democrat lawyer knows you have to protect some super expensive prescription drugs, otherwise there is no one out there to sue….

Then she laid it on thick wiht some story about a lesbian student who needs birth control to treat some endomytriosis type disease, and even though she stated that the Georgetown program would cover that, she pulled some smoke and mirrors to say that it was being denied her due to harrasment, and so that woman stopped taking it, and now has early menopause.

I personally don’t believe any of her “stats” or hypothetical scenarios. I’d like to see the actual cases she is talking about.

And it is about time Jesuits get off their social justice crap heap and all the dung beetles it attracts and stop giving “public interest” scholarships to people like her….
znjs

This is a conservative site, no? Then there is a ‘we’ here. ‘We’ as a site have been talking a lot about contraceptions and not wanting to pay for them. lately.
streiff

and subsidiezing some chick’s extracurricular humping isn’t?
streiff

nt
streiff

BONUS POINT: Why is a person who lost a U.S. Senate campaign after sucking up vast resources from Republicans donors that could have gone elsewhere somehow made the Vice Chairman of the GOP?s Senate Campaign Committee?

She’s a loser. She has a demonstrated talent for it. And losers are what we try to recruit for our Senate races and then raise to leadership positions if they happen to win.
bcochran1981

Because they’re a SCOAMF?
Jack_Savage

He’s just glad to see you.
WA_Cowboy
Tbone

to lose because they walk, talk and smell like Democrats.
sbm1

I just heard her throw that “as you know, can cost up to $3000″ number at the front…and then it was just sob stories…

I think that $3000 number is with the most expensive and newest on patent birth control pill…..I doubt anymore than 5% of women would buy that out of pocket if they paid for it themselves.
izoneguy

He should have fun smacking down Carly today
Scope

even though Cornyn said they would not be getting involved in the primaries that year. Hopefully she is working for the Committee for free, at least up to the amount of their donations to her loser campaign. She was also endorsed by that stalwart conservative Senator McCain. She was endorsed, and most likely received donations from Mitt Romney. She was also endorsed by Sarah Palin, a self-described conservative, over Ken Buck the real conservative in the race.

Romney endorsed her, because like him, she was a job creator. Too bad that much of their job creation took place in China, or in other foreign nations.
streiff

can be under the circumstances one is left with the conclusion that she uses something else. You can probably spot her dorm, it’s the one with the 18-wheeler with the Trojan logo on it parked out front.

Obviously she was bulls***ing. There is no way it could cost that much and if it did become a financial hardship then there is a very cheap solution… especially at what remains at least a nominally Catholic university… stop screwing everything in sight.
kinggold

Rush did the latter here, so don’t blame Fiorina for calling him on it.

It no longer matters how idiotic or irrelevant her testimony was, how indicative of cultural rot her worldview is, and how disingenuous Democrats were in pushing her. Now, the story is that Rush Limbaugh called a college coed a slut and a prostitute. And if you think that’s a net-positive when we’re trying to win a message war for religious liberty. your head’s in a place where sunlight doesn’t reach.

The “phony soldiers” comment was defensible, because the Democrats took it out of context and twisted its meaning. There’s absolutely no ambiguity here that Limbaugh meant to call her a slut. So expect the media to use that against Republican politicians who, unlike Limbaugh, actually have to win people’s votes.
earlgrey

than when do I get my free handgun? I have a right to it, don’t I?

MSM wasn’t talkng about this ludicrous testimony until Rush went on his tirade.
znjs

I’m starting to think it’s intentional. I am very opposed to ‘subsidiezing some chick?s extracurricular humping’. I made that very clear. But that’s not all I’m opposed to subsidizing, and I think that only focusing on one is a bad as it gives the wrong impression that we’re just opposed to it because it chiefly relates to women. We should focus on it as one of many things we’re opposed to subsidizing to make it clear that’s not the case.
Jack_Savage

Instead of a fixed cost, like a monthly birth control prescription would be, she is incurring a variable cost, which kicks in on a per-unit basis.

Hmmm…looks like she may have a point. Maybe we could employ a progressive type subsidy, modeled on the current tax code. Let’s say she has sex, oh, twice per day. Since this February is in a leap year, she would get one more day of sex with random men who are too damn poor to carry a rubber around in their billfolds. Given her politics, she is probably affiliating with the “men” of the Occupy D.C. movement, which would explain the need for a sexual subsidy. The total amount of sexual encounters requiring a condom would then total 58.

The first forty-seven percent of her sexual encounters should be totally free, subsidized by the taxpayers. Then, as she progresses into further debauchery during the other 53% of the time, she could move into higher and higher “sex brackets”, with the highest one forcing her to pay about 90% of expenses related to her sexual activity.

Of course, since the government and taxpayers would be subsidizing her contraceptives, it only stands to reason the taxpayers should have some say in how they are used. A subsidized webcam and live internet feed would solve this problem nicely.

Of course, this subsidy would be for contraception only, and any other costs associated with her sluttery would be borne by her, such as travel, meals, lodging, whips and chains, etc. It would also only cover basic condoms, with any additional costs for specialty items also borne by her. (Hey – I used “borne” in this post…that’s what they really hate. Heh.)

I think we can bridge the partisan divide, and come together over this issue. Maybe now we can start to heal as a nation.
streiff

and dumb conclusions.

That is all.

You are claiming Alinsky’s rules don’t work. They do.
Scope

at the request of Queen Pelosi, when she had her own single witness (Flake) come and testify on “women’s health” issues. Pelosi doesn’t believe that men know anything about sex and making babies. Pelosi wasn’t going to allow all that liberal prep time with Flake go to waste.
kinggold

And you should be proud of it.
daveinthed

Yes, the point that Fiorina is making is that use of the word “slut” only serves to HURT our cause, not help it. Hello? We all know that the lamestreamers control 90% of what’s seen and heard in the media. They don’t care what Rush “meant”, in what context it was used, or any of the details. Our side will be demonized and trashed relentlessly for one such dumb comment, for years…forever.

Rush is, by design, a blowhard who’ll say such things whether they help us or hurt us. HE thinks that whatever he says “helps” the conservative cause. Not so. Slip-ups/gaffes/dumb comments like this only hurt the cause. You don’t call someone a slut because they politick for birth control in health-care coverage. That’s just ignorant. It doesn’t even makes sense.

Of course we don’t want to subsidize/socialize birth control. Let’s make THAT case. Not that anyone who supports subsidized birth control is a “slut” or “prostitute”. A moronic, leftist stooge who can afford $50k college but is not willing to pony up $10/month for birth control pills, yes. A “slut” or prostitute, no.

God, sometimes I HATE what these guys do “for” the conservative cause. They are all too happy to MARGINALIZE conservatives as a whole, as long as they get to bloviate whatever it is that comes to their mind at any given moment.
streiff

because I’ve spent several years listening to people like you expound on what will and won’t work and have yet to see a successful prediction.

What you’re doing is saying that you, someone without a single day of experience in political communications, knows more than a guy how makes tens of millions of dollars each year, and has for over two decades, doing that. You don’t and you don’t know what you are talking about. What you are engaging in is the avoidable tragedy of a self-beclowning.

So pardon me if I am totally underwhelmed by your opinion.
Jack_Savage

It was the truth.

Just for kicks, what is *your* definition of “slut”?
streiff

what you wrote, I just think it is silly.
edintexas

I’m so glad you have the ability to speak for all Conservatives (conservatives too).
kinggold

It’s sterling proof, however, that this is beneficial to one Rush H. Limbaugh and his pocketbook. Rush looks out for himself above all others, as he should. So your high and mighty appeals to authority certainly belie the idea that you’re conflating Rush Limbaugh’s business model with conservative success.

And if we’re going to talk about “successful predictions,” we can always go back to the greatest hits of 2010 True Conservative Senate endorsements.
tnguy

….perhaps not an approrpiate title for this thread….

But Carly Fiorina shows once more that conservatives just blindly pulling the lever of whichever person has (R) after their name doesn’t work.
kinggold

nothing’s going to be more helpful than talking about Sandra Fluke for three days, which is three days more than she deserved to be talked about.
znjs

By focusing only on contraceptions and not making it clear that we oppose that as a part of us opposing subsidizing any lifestyles we make it easy for liberals to say we’re just trying to demand all women live according to our believes. I’d like to take away that attack. I don’t see why that’s such a silly goal.

I’m not saying to say that we shouldn’t have to pay for women’s contraceptions, all I’m asking for is mention that we oppose subsidizing any lifestyle expenses, not just this one. Is that really such a crazy idea?
JSobieski

Using the word “slut” may get Rush an ovation from the choir, it won’t be persuasive to those on the fence.

In the same way that Santorum made a tactical mistake into letting opposition to mandated contraception on grounds of religious freedom be transformed into opposition to contraception, use of the “slut” makes it too easy for the media spin on the story to be about Republican prudes instead of the entitlement mentality of the left.

If the goal is to win applause, Rush’s approach is better. If the goal is to win the debate, using the word “slut” is counterproductive.
Aaron Gardner

Keep the focus tight and we can win on this issue. If you expand it beyond the current argument you just open up more avenues for the Dems to attempt a flank.
Jack_Savage

When we say “we are opposed to subsidizing lifestyles!”, that is vague and unhelpful. When we hear a woman tell us how her sexual activity needs to be subsidized, and we call her out, and mock her like she needs to be mocked, all of a sudden people say “Hmmm…this is what they are talking about.” Then it becomes real, and then it becomes ridiculous, and then it becomes unpopular.
kinggold

Based on what I’m reading so far, the Democrat-media complex is opting to go with “Republican misogynists.” And I’m scared to death that Rush’s comments are just one thing helping that stick.
streiff

“we” are focusing on what should and should not be mandated by the government for insurance coverage. “We” are focusing on religious freed. “You” are focusing on contraception.
edintexas

Fluke is an activist for contraception (and most likely abortion also). She deliberately chose to enroll in a Jesuit institution after her research showed that contraceptives would not be covered by Georgetown’s student health plans. She acknowledges working for the past 3 years trying to get Georgetown to change policy (in opposition to Church doctrine).

The child* is a shoo-in for a Democrat law firm when she graduates.

* According to Obamacare, she’s still a child on her parent’s health insurance – wonder why she isn’t trying to get her parent’s health insurance changed.
streiff

because your contributions to conservatism have been so huge. My bad.
edintexas

Before anyone asks, I forgot the link:

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

Not exactly a VRWC information source.
Ann_W

I support this argument complely. It is about making other people pay for our own choices. But the MSM are calling it a war against women (thank you Santorum for not knowing how to present things). And calling this girl a slut is Rush walking through the door that the MSM has opened.

A conservative could make the point that people are making here that we don’t pay for other choices– guns for instance. You can even make the point that we don’t pay for diabetes supplies, etc. If you were really smart you would bring in an older woman and ask why she has to pay for someone’s contraception. But this slut thing does not benefit conservatives at all. Politics is message.
kinggold

by me were either up for debate and evaluation or had any relevance whatsoever to my argument, which was that Limbaugh handed the media the cudgel they’re using against us.

If you want an echo chamber, you’ve already got one here; contrary opinions around here tend to be smacked down awfully quickly by folks with red- and green-colored names. But don’t expect echoed falsehoods to suddenly become true over time.
znjs

And they all say it’s for completely different reasons

One claims we’re only talking about contraceptions because that’s all this issue is about.

One claims we’re only talking about contraceptions because it helps to be specific.

One claims we’re not only talking about contraceptions at all! That’s just my imagination and what I’m doing, not him. (kinda hurts your case when you’re the only one saying we’re not just talking about contraceptions, doesn’t it.)

And there’s the problem. We should be doing what streiff claims we are doing, but he seems to be the only one who thinks we are. We should mention contraceptions as an example of things we shouldn’t have to subsidize (as Jack says), but be clear that’ is just an example, not the only thing. But all most people are hearing is that we’re opposed to contraceptions and that only. And that doesn’t help our cause.
Aaron Gardner

My comment didn’t mention contraception once.
JSobieski

Now its an intra-party scuffle.

The left is so much better at media tactics than our side is.
znjs

What did you mean by “this issue”. That to me made it sound like you were mentioning the issue of subsidizing contraceptions? If I made a mistake I apologize, but honestly it seems like an obvious reading of what you said, even if you didn’t use the word “contraceptions”.
Jack_Savage

It turns out that if you have a lot of sex, you are at higher risk of disease, which theoretically would NOT be the goal if “women’s health” was the main concern.

It turns out, so they say at the CDC, that you can get all these things from lots of sex:

Diseases & Related Conditions

Bacterial Vaginosis (BV)
Chlamydia
Gonorrhea
Hepatitis, Viral
Herpes, Genital
HIV/AIDS & STDs
Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID)
Syphilis
Trichomoniasis

Yuck. Looks like the “women’s health” advocates should really be pushing for abstinence – right? And did you know that all these diseases affect poor people more? YES, that’s RIGHT. The CDC says so.

So look for an abstinence movement from the left any time now…because, you know, it’s all about women’s health.
JSobieski

in the universe of people who are fixed on neither side of the argument is just going to play into the meme of Republicans don’t like people having sex—i.e. Republicans are prudes.

The best way to mock someone in this context is to make analogies to other types of activities.

What else should we subsidize? Vacations? Trips to the spa? Entertainment? etc.

Anytime the context is sex, one should be aware how easy it is for the left to turn the tables.

Nothing wrong with being conservative AND tactically smart.
kinggold

But the ball is now in Rush’s court. He can either attack Fiorina (and now John Boehner, who has also expressed his disappointment with the comments), or he can let the issue die and move on to things that are far more pressing.

How he reacts will speak volumes about how he balances his personal pride against the furtherance of conservative message goals. Make no mistake, they’re right now at cross purposes.
JSobieski

The deed is done. People going public about how Rush should take it back, apologize, etc. are just compounding the problem.
Aaron Gardner

That is what this girl testified about to congress.
docaja

pay for diabetes supplies for people who have become obese through their own choices. We pay to treat cancer for people who choose to smoke. Focusing these arguments on birth control and referring to those who use it as “sluts” does not help. How would you feel if Limbaugh had said, “Why should I subsidize some big fat pig’s consumption of twinkies?”
JSobieski

People like Breitbart understood that the cutlrure wars must be fought in the culture, and that you need to try and reach people where they are.

And the yes the play on words was intentional
kinggold

The people pushing back on the comments are being continuously pestered by the media to do so. I don’t know how much of that pressure you could stand for how long, but nobody’s patience is infinite.

It’s probably moot in any case. I’m reading that Rush’s advertisers are starting to get jittery, which will force him to backtrack in some fashion.
westcoastpatriette

I will mainly focus on your last paragraph that rightly ponders why a person who made a failed run for Senate in 2010 — Carly Fiorina — is now serving as the Vice Chair of the GOP’s Senate Campaign Committee.

Answering that question — as well as addressing the childish behavior from both Limbaugh and Fiorina regarding the contraception issue — leaves me to conclude that the only answer for conservatives and the GOP going forward is very simply that we must recruit and groom new, younger leadership.

It seems to me that both Limbaugh and Fiorina — at least in this case — are behaving badly. We need to do better if we ever want to win the party and the country back.
Jack_Savage

let me give you an example.

When I went to grad school, I had a conversation with a person who was in the student clinic. When he mentioned that there was a six week waiting list for appointments to get birth control pills, I looked at a friend who was standing beside me. He didn’t say a word, but his eyes said, clearly, “Hot DAMN!” I don’t need to explain why, but it certainly wasn’t because he was a women’s health advocate.

No one calls anything what it actually is any more. When Rush said, “slut”, we all knew what he was talking about, and I think that is a good thing. And we are all talking about it today, which is a good thing. And whatshername may not know it, but her little testimony has put her well on the way to becoming a punch line.

Alinsky and all that. Rush is brilliant.
Scope

bimbos on CNN are outraged I tell you because Rush dared to call the college student, who wants her sexual activities paid for by the taxpayer’s, just what it is. If Rush has been able to accomplish one thing, using not politically correct language, he has kept the contracption aka women’s health, alive and still on the table, The liberals would love nothing more than to make this issue go away, and never to be brought up again by the media. They are masters are burying their negative positions. If it takes inflamatory language to keep the debate alive, so be it. The liberals are doing everything they can to try to sway the argument away from the government mandate, and over to it being a women’s issue. Gender warfare is just another portion of their warfare to split the country between genders, classes, races and anything else they can split the voters on. I’m happy to just let the 7 Atty’s Gen, and anyone else who wants to join their lawsuit, argue the religious freedom element, the most important by far, in a court of law.
testing

They are better at media tactics because they control the words. Due to our poor conservative discipline on issues we have let the most recent of many”free government give away programs which targets a reliable Democrat voting block – women of child bearing (aborting) age in this case” the contraception” become a question “access to needed health care for women” rather than another simple example of redistribution of wealth and government control. Effectively the government is going to make everyone who can’t bear children pay for a service for those who can. It is basic unfairness. As an added point we should have brought up the fact that that it violated religious beliefs. They now have defined “denial of access” to mean “not free” in the MSM.
JSobieski

“If you want to talk about Snookie’s pregnancy, find another pol?”

Think back to Clinton.

How does any of this talk prepare our workforce to compete in the 21st century?

Changing the topic is easy. Libs do it all the time.

Anything more than “that isn’t a word I would use” is unhelpful.

One could also proceed with “were are the limits of subsidiziation? Vacations? Entertainment? Cell phones? Internet connectivity”

If someone can’t change the topic, the shouldn’t be in the limelight.
acat

Not particularly safe for work, although .. it is all text … I give you:

Texts From Last Night…

We can ignore the future, we can stand on the sidelines and pantomime shock and horror, or – we can follow Breitbart’s lead and figure out how to change it from within. First two will be as useless today as they were in King Canute’s time.

Mew
kinggold

Just askin’.
Ann_W

But you are completely agreeing w/ my point. Rush’s comments were stupid and counter productive.

And to J Sob’s comment below– it’s true– they are. And they have also been endoctrinated in classes telling them that people call women sluts to repress them. It’s a mantra they repeat. Rush is writing a case study for one of these women’s studies classes. The whole thing is stupid and really backfires on conservatives.

If there’s one thing that could blind independents from looking at the economic sanity message conservatives have, it’s this one.
JSobieski

Statistically speaking, the majority of independent voters between the ages of 18 and 35 are probably what you would call sluts.

So we have a choice:
(1) Try to address issues in a way that we can win
(2) Feel good about ourselves by calling it as we see it

(2) is a losing strategy if you want to win.

By all means—lets support abstinance. Lets persuade people not to sleep around. However, the word “slut” is inflammatory in part because so many people out there are in fact sluts.

Delicate subjects require a nuanced tone. Constructive criticism requires a soft touch.

I have no doubt that there is some personal weakness you have, and that the tone in addressing that weakness makes all the difference in how you would react.

That is the nature of being human.

You can’t give someone tough love without first establishing the love.
znjs

Given that this post (both mine starting this thread and Erick’s original one) didn’t mention conscience rights at all. All it mentioned was taxpayers paying so women can have sex without worrying about pregnancy.

But I’d say even if we’re talking about conscience rights we can do a better job of making it clear that’s the issue, not just women having sex.
Aaron Gardner

Try watching the news once in a while, you’ll be less confused.
znjs

I think they’re perfectly happy to keep this fight alive – look how often they ask Santorum about it. I think this is the rare wedge issue that both sides think favors them. We’ll see who’s right. I do think Carly Fiorina’s testimony hurts their cause as long as we’re smart about how we use it. I don’t think Rush was.
westcoastpatriette

People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. And approaching human beings with that premise does work in terms of effectiveness.
JSobieski

just answering.

Rush loves this stuff.
daveinthed

Yes, when you use the word “slut”, you serve to HELP the LIBs because you allow them to ignore the rational arguments against socialized birth control and focus on the dumb, some think “brilliant” comment.
Aaron Gardner

Or do you really have no clue what you are talking about?
JSobieski

and when they do, they use very toned down language.

It seems like Republicans are so happy to agree with the interviewer on SOMETHING that they don’t see themselves as aiding and abetting the enemy.

Liberals see themselves as a team because there is only one state and people are just appendages of the state.

Conservatives see themselves as individuals because they see people as individuals.

Ask yourself why there are relatively few communist vs. leftist democrat debates at the Daily Kos while there are numerous conservative vs. libertarian arguments at RS?
streiff

Fiorina didn’t testify.
Jack_Savage

And I understand your argument, but “tough love” isn’t the point. The point is to bring this whole thing to the light of day, and “slut” does that. Tough love doesn’t fill the airwaves or internet. “Slut” does. Your demographic doesn’t vote. My demographic does. Again, Alinsky – isolate it and ridicule it.

Let me also give you some idea of a trend that is coming – abstinence. Young people, particularly those under 18, see the emptiness of hopping from bed to bed. To be perfectly frank, TV is doing a great job of illustrating it, although they definitely don’t mean to. Kids know what a slut is, and what a slut does.

And “slut” focuses this whole thing where it needs to be focused – not “women’s health”, but “lots of sex”. Fluke can argue until she is blue in the face, but the simple fact is that the purpose of contraception is so the users can have sex without worrying about pregnancy, not so they can be healthier.
Jack_Savage

Do you think liberals win on facts, or on style?

Correct. They win on style. That’s why you think this plays into their hands. But you are wrong, because the longer we talk about this, the more people think about it, the more the facts get brought up, the better off we are as conservatives.
JSobieski

It would bring a lot of attention to the message on the sign. The mssage on the sign would dominate the news for several days if not weeks.

it would still be a bad idea.

Some attention getting tactics are counterproductive.

You should try convincing someone of your position while using the word “slut”. You chance of success is nil.

I live in a blue state. I argue with libs all the time. I try to win and persuade. It is particularly bad form for a man to use the S word. Only the C word is worse.
Common_Cents
Scope

discussion on this issue, namely religious freedom, and unconstitutional mandates to go away. They have tried to make it about women’s health, and gender warfare. The liberals have always tried to portray themselves as the ones that care about the little guy, or in this case gal. After all, those evil conservatives want you to utilize the asprin method of birth control. What neanderthals those evil Republicans are. In addition to becoming Greece economically, we are also becoming Rome right before the fall.
Aaron Gardner

nt
JSobieski

Most swing voters are sluts. Most pregnancies involving women under 30 involve unwed mothers.

Calling people sluts just gets everyone defensive and focused on the meme of Republicans wanting to control a woman’s vagina.

The fact that his is happening after Santorum’s criticism of Kennedy’s speech is just an early Christmas gift for liberals.

Look at the stats on unwed mothers. Most swing voters are sluts. The moderate squishes are going to relate to the Flake and feel that they are all being “judged”.

Liberals win on style, and you seem determined to ensure their future success.
znjs

with the person who reacted to Rush’s response to the testimony. Obviously messing up which is which invalidates everything I’ve ever said in my life.
Jack_Savage

And he almost won Romney’s home state.

Maybe another example would make your point better. But really, FWIW, I get what you are saying. We’ll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Sometimes the sky is blue, the grass is green, and a slut is a slut.
Aaron Gardner

.
znjs

I read it as “Rush is right – it’s crazy that we should have to pay for women to have sex.”

You apparently read it as “Rush is right – it’s crazy that we should have for women to have sex given that what they want for having sex (contraceptions) is against some people’s religious beliefs”

I’d argue both are right, but even though I know the debate got started over churches having to pay I think the first part stands on it’s own – I don’t jump right to adding the “given that what they want…” – and I guess I thought Erick was doing the same in this post since he didn’t mention the religion aspect of it at all.
Jack_Savage

But when it is all said and done, the impression remains that liberals are advocating for sex all the time without consequences, including actually paying for contraceptives. The people you are arguing with don’t have kids or experience, so it’s all just theoretical at this point. Just wait.

Try this argument on this issue, “So your position is that we should pay for a law school student’s condoms? Are the guys she bangs too lazy, stupid or poor to bring one? Or do you think it’s always the woman’s role to provide birth control? If you are really concerned about women’s health, shouldn’t you be talking about abstinence? Or do we need to pay for STD treatment too? Oh yeah, that’s right, we already do.”

A little tough love, that.
daveinthed

jsobieski, well put. I agree 100%.

Of course this helps facilitate and “condone” casual, non-marital or promiscuous sex. For many people, that will be the case…a message of encouragement to go ahead and have unmarried, casual or promiscuous sex . That’s a shame and ONE of the reasons to reject the notion of “socialized” birth control. I get all that. We all do. At least I think that most conservatives would agree with that. But the use of the word “slut” only helps LIBs avoid the rational arguments against it.

Rush thinks that whatever he says “helps” our side. It doesn’t. Sometimes his Blowhardness comes bursting forth in the wrong way and it allows the LIBs all kinds of escape routes and ammunition to demonize us rather than focus on the topic at hand. Now, they can talk about Rush and generalize about what “prudes”, “mysogynists” and crude jerks Republicans and conservatives are for “calling women sluts” just because they have a political disagreement about the sobsidization of birth control.

Can the FAR-RIGHTies EVER admit to being wrong? Rush was wrong. imo, he should apologize for calling this woman (and others) “sluts” and instead, he should explain the rational arguments against socialized birth control.

Amazing what LOW standards these chair-sitting, microphone-jockey blowhards hold themselves to, while if Romney, Clinton, Obama, Biden etc.. called someone a “slut” these guys would be livid.

Truth, folks. We can’t allow our blowhards, however often they may be right, to undermine our rational arguments with STUPID comments that simply feed LIB stereotypes and deflect attention from the matter at hand.
Juggernaut

taxpayer pay for a hump for anyone considering the cost and the fact health departments nationwide give them away for free. We need to tighten the fight towards actual cost versus the arguments written thus far by the media. No media company I’ve seen online or TV has discussed the actual cost. Even Planned Parenthood give it away and sells it.

Won’t be long till they expect taxpayers to pay for cigarettes after sex, opps my bad, they hate free market anything especially something that endangers polar bears and scares Al Gore.

$9 bucks a month at Target, Walmart and Kroger

$15 to $50 at Planned Parenthood, PP is scamming people for $50 and we give them subsidies, jeese!!!

Sandra, get second job if you can’t afford $9 or think about that aspirin idea!

http://www.reproductiveaccess.org/contraception/lowcost_pills.htm

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm

http://health.costhelper.com/birth-control-pills.html
For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication — usually $5 to $15 — and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it’s mandatory; the Kaiser Family Foundation lists 33 states that require coverage of birth control.
Aaron Gardner

No wonder you are so confused.
testing

I think I will use your statement about only one state and one people in describing liberalism. It sounds good on the surface but it means they ultimately render their individual identity subordinate to the state. It sounds good that we are one people until the state wants you to do something against your will. When they speak of “one people” they mean globally not just in the USA.

Liberals also win because the have easily targetable voting blocks – unions, evironmentalists, etc.
JSobieski

Trips to the spa?
Cell phone?
High speed Internet?

Individual responsibility is easier to establish when you take it out of healthcare to establish the general principle.

Health care is riddle with third party payor issues, which is why healthcare is so screwed up.
JSobieski

I was simply explaining one tactical advantage that they seem to have.

Being an appendage is an affront to humanity.

Each individual human being is unique and should be treated as such. Collectivism is the worst kind of evil.
znjs

“The liberals want the most important discussion on this issue, namely religious freedom, and unconstitutional mandates to go away. They have tried to make it about women?s health, and gender warfare.”

Exactly. And I want to make it harder for liberals to try to confuse the issue. By having too narrow a focus it’s easy for them to claim it’s about gender warfare. Making it clear we’re opposed to this as part of a bigger issue (whether you consider the bigger issue to be ‘religious freedom’ or ‘unconstitutional mandates’) we make it harder for them to win on this issue. And that’s all I want. That has been my point from the beginning.
http://chuckdevore.com Chuck DeVore

N/T
testing

I do think you were being insightful which is much appreciated. Many comments are just venting by frustrated bloggers. I prefer commentors like you which want us understand what we up against and offer solutions.

Collectivism is the worst kind of evil because it replaces God and God given morals with a manmade government whose basic morals can only be relative and which will change over time. I read a recent article about how “post-birth abortions” are jsut as morally acceptable as “pre-birth abortions”. Insanity.
runner12

said, and I am a woman who has no moral objection to birth control. The reason why? I actually listened to the context of what he was saying. His point was NOT that using birth control makes one a slut. He was questioning that if the taxpayer is funding this woman’s sex without consequences, does that payment make her a prostitute? I will also add that it was said with quite a bit of sarcasm as well.

The issue is the taxpayer funding of someone else’s birth control, not contraception itself.

What offended me the most was the Democrats’ response to this. It was purely insulting that they think women are so stupid that all they have to say is “contraception” and all women will be up in arms. Contrary to what the idiot Left thinks, women are intelligent and can read the truth for themselves. This shameless pandering and demeaning demagoguery makes me want to throw up.

Do they honestly believe that women will buy that “those mean old GOP people want to take your birth control?” Really? We are more likely to be concerned about how we will feed our families and get to work with the high gas prices.

Spin away, Democrats. You look more foolish by every passing hour.
runner12

As for Ms. Fluke, does anyone actually believe that women who can afford a 50,000 dollar a year tuition bill do not have the funds to buy birth control?

Please.

Also, if Ms. Fluke is so passionate about birth control why is she attending a Catholic University? For answers, see edintexas’ comment upthread. It seems that Ms. Fluke has been campaigning to force the Catholic Church on this issue for years. Coincidence that Pelosi picked her to go up to DC? Hardly.
JSobieski

It is a question of tactics.
rightland1111

what Rush failed to realize is that other people don’t even know what a metaphor is…let alone a noun! Rush could have used another example to illustrate his point. What has happened here is we are getting off topic….yes…off topic.

This is a First Amendment Issue and it should stay a first amendment issue. This is not about contraception..it is not about birth control. It is about the First Amendment:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Now…seeing how Obama is supposed to be some Constitutional scholar…give it back to him in the language he claims to understand and meanwhile…we might educate the public on what this is all about.
johnt

Things that can be bought at low prices ,say $10. As always the conversation has been twisted by the left and as painfully always we seem to follow. The Normal People are not snatching the food from women, not at those prices. Of course they could reduce their sexual activity but that’s asking too much.
And as others here have pointed out, this resolves around the 1st Amendment. Yet again the left twists and we turn,. A president spits on the Bill of Rights and we debate the costs of contraception, and for those who can afford it but want another freebie from government.
Scope

I ooopsed. Of course I meant to say the endorsers went all in for the liberal Fiorina, and not for the conservative candidate Mr. Chuck DeVore. If I remember correctly, the majority of people here were in favor of DeVore in the primary, and knew Fiorina was a liberal.
johnjohn23

is the religious freedom one. These other ones are just not making sense. Let’s talk about subsidies. First off, the role of insurance companies is to subsidize. That is what they do. My payments are subsidizing someone’s diabetes tests and someone else’s MRIs. I’m paying for people constantly. That’s what I do as an insurance policyholder. And if I get very sick or injured on the job they will pay for me. That’s how it works.

But let’s assume you get past the subsidy argument, and just take it for granted that there’s something wrong with subsidizing birth control. Then you have to make an argument that its okay to subsidize viagra, whose purpose is to allow sex (some non-procreative), and condoms, whose purpose is to allow non-procreative sex, but not pills, whose purpose is to allow non-procreative sex. It’s not like they make you sign a statement with viagra that you’re only going to use it for procreation. If pills can’t be subsidized because they make sluts how is condoms or viagra? It would be one thing if condoms were 100% effective but they’re not, so if you admit the condoms are valid then the pills should be too, since they just add to the effectiveness of the goal.

Let’s assume you get passed that – you have to make the argument that everyone on birth control, or at least the majority, are sluts. That’s got HORRIBLE optics for us.

And once you pass that, you have an effectiveness argument that’s tough to get around. If you don’t subsidize pills, you think the poor or stupid are going to stop having sex out of deference to your pocketbook? No, they’ll just have sex and get pregnant. That’s far more expensive than pills, it sometimes leads to abortions, and when she has the unwanted child what kind of a mother might she be? A good scenario is she gives the child up for adoption to a better family, but then you’re subsidizing the cost of that. If she keeps the child and is a horrible mother you’re paying for social services to deal with it, the courts to take the child away, and if they kid grows up to be a drain on society (i.e. a democrat) you’re paying for its unemployment and/or jailing.

There’s no way the numbers add up. It’s cheaper to just pay the $10 a month for the pills than to pay for all the other costs and procedures. The only way to win the effectiveness argument is to go to insanely unpopular lengths. Like a law that prevents people from having sex unless they can afford birth control, or forced sterilizations of poor people. It can’t be done.

What am I missing? Isn’t this argument a loser? The religious freedom vs. government mandate is an argument. The subsidizing sluts is wrong argument is fail.
Aaron Gardner
beafrank

media. I doubt she even here Rush’s logical comments on the subject. The lamestream always brings certain Republicans on-air to create a intra party conflict. Rush’s comments were spot on target and the Left goes bonkers because they recognize the absurdity of free contraceptives. Where is it going to stop? Why not give Ms. Fluke a free dinner and jello shots to justify the free contraceptives? As Rush observed, the taxpayers might as well get their monies worth and get a sex tape from contribution. We can see our taxes at work from school, dinner to the bedroom. I least we know it will not be any girl on girl action, otherwise, the contraceptive is not needed.
runner12

with ourselves and yet the Left can call a Conservative woman every name in the book, including the word “slut” and many other colorful names?

I am calling them out on their hypocrisy and their hysterics.

Could he have used a better metaphor? Maybe. Would it have changed the way the Left has reacted. Not even a little.

I will defend Rush on this one, not because I am a huge fan or anything, but because he spoke the truth.

The truth twists people off. Often.
After Seven

136 Free Condom Outlets in Washington DC http://t.co/zOC1jOWF What a joke the GOP has been suckered into.

More importantly, this simply isn’t a Federal Issue. Period. Nor is Healthcare for that matter.

The law is whatever we so boldly assert….The Constitution happens to back my position on this one. Wickard v Filburn and its Unconstitutional progeny notwithstanding.
Scope

that the right must keep this to a first amendment issue, and back away, as much as possible from falling into the “women’s health issue” garbage. Ms Flake was sure to add, in her testimony, the need for contraception for other real health issues, with her testimony that someone she knew needed the pill for other medical issues. I will say, without doubt that those probably rare times that the pill can help some real health issues, are about as convincing as Obama saying that he really does support Israel. On the other hand, birth control pills can and do cause as many health problems, such as blood clots, more so then they help anyone with medical issues. The liberals always take that one or two examples, and run with it as though it is much more widespread. They are liars, and propagandists, but we already knew that.

The liberals are outraged at Rush’s language, yet, on the day that Andrew Breitbart died, the liberals Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone, and Matt Eglasious (sp) both posted or tweeted their glee at Breitbart’s death. Why are the Republicans expected to be held to a level of political correctness, yet the liberals can be as nasty, mean and disgusting as you can get. I look at it as Rush fighting fire with fire. He is but one version of an Andrew Breitbart with a big wide microphone, and it seems that his latest and biggest goal has been with the lies and propaganda coming out of a media that are only outraged when the right hits them back with their own incivility.
northeastred

And we are going to get killed on this, like lambs to the slaughter. Because Obama is putting Rush Limbaugh’s face on this issue, and Rush calling college girls whores and prostitutes is not a winner. Please, God, Please do not allow Santorum to come to Rush’s defense on this.
edintexas

At Wally World, according to one caller to the Limbaugh show, the charge is $4.00 for a month’s supply.

That should be accurate as Wally World has a generic pharmaceutical program which dispenses the most commonly prescribed generic drugs at a cost of $4.00 for a month’s supply, or $48.00 per year (and I didn’t even need a calculator to determine the total). Where Ms. Flake – er – Fluke comes up with her figures is almost beyond me. But I’m reminded of the old saw about figures not lying, but that liars figure.
norris

Maybe all the men could chip in 5 bucks per trick.
freedom555

If less Viagra was prescribed…

…..we’d probably need less of The Pill too.

This is all too funny to me.

It’s also a can of worms that all sides will wish had not been opened.

I predict insurance companies will stop providing so-called Erectile Dysfunction drugs soon enough.
Samsara

My wife has a medical condition that makes a normal birth dangerous. We had two children through caesarian section. In the operating room after the last birth my wife told me she could not go through this again. I had a vasectomy paid for by my insurance.

The Catholic Church is against all birth control, including birth control surgery. Does that mean the Catholic Church should stop participating in all healthcare plans that cover vasectomy?

Mr. Limbaugh doesn’t think his contribution to an insurance plan should be used to subsidize birth control, in other words subsidize me.

So Erick, my question is why are my premiums being used to subsidize the lifestyle choices of obese, cigar puffing political pundits?
Samsara

I did not know that.

and as it turns out, Mr. Limbaugh has such a prescription, all be it in the wrong name.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/rush-limbaughs-dominican-stag-party?page=3

So why am I being asked to subsidize Rush Limbaugh’s sex life?
Ann_W

If you want a health plan that subsidizes birth control, etc. You should be able to get it. Older people who don’t want that don’t need to get that rider. People that want Psych riders should be able to get that, etc. I would love it if there were a non-smoking, target weight plan that I could choose that would keep me from subsidizing Rush Limbaugh. But as it is the gov’t keeps adding more and more required stuff and “surprise” healthcare costs go up and up and we subsidize everyone’s lifestyle choices. We especially should have high deductible plans and Medical Savings Accounts available to choose because those of us who work a hard at keeping healthy should see some benefit to that.
lineholder

to the Congressional hearing when she was attempting to justify government’ mandate of contraceptives and abortifacients, regardless of whether or not it violates our religious freedoms?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/03/02/government_saving_money_by_decreasing_the_number_of_human_beings
Ann_W

Because they can’t talk about the important issues for the country the left has been working on the “War on Women” campaign for a long time. It’s why they have been obsessing about Santorum’s comments. When they keep the discussion on their turf they win by not talking about the economy, etc. Rush Limbaugh fell in their trap, and didn’t care because it got him free publicity. They have been working on this line since the George Snuffolupogus question asking Romney about outlawing birth control (remember how that came out of no where?) Also remember the stupid photo op of the Dem Congresswomen walking out of the hearing.

The conservative arguments that win are ones that stress freedom and responsibility. These ideas are why Ron Paul is getting popular among young people.

Examples:
1) Freedom– We believe in smaller govt. Why are you inviting govt. into your bedroom to be involved in your private decisions? Keep the govt. out of your bedroom or they’ll have the right to dictate what you can use and when you can use it.

2) Responsibility– why should the couple working hard to support their own family have to pay someone elses lifestyle choices? Bring out examples like the left always does.

3) Responsiblility 2– Why shouldn’t your stud bring a condom along? You should make him do that. There are more dangers than just pregnancy, the pill only protects from pregnancy not the 30+ STD’s that most college students have.

Rush’s response is like the argument that you have w/ your spouse or child when you have a great cutting remark you could yell at them and it would feel so good to say, but it does nothing to help the situation. He should have held his toungue because it gives fuel to the fire that so many uninformed voters will believe.
lineholder

for other medical conditions, and it’s a valid form of treatment in those cases. Just like birth control pills can be valid forms of treatment for women who have excessive problems with their menstrual cycle.

That’s not what Fluke was complaining about in her Congressional testimony. She wasn’t presenting her case in support of women who have other medical conditions that can be treated via BC pills.

She was whining like a 4-year-old does when they can’t get their own way all the time.
Samsara

And I can?t think of a worse messenger for this well reasoned argument that Limbaugh.

Thank you Ann, your response makes a lot of sense.

However, if you carry this argument to its final point, I should be able to buy health insurance that only covers young people from groups at lower risk of disease and a record of good habits, meaning that only those people will be able to afford insurance.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

There are an infinite number of “services” that one might advance that would reduce health care costs, which choices I think would be best left to the wisdom of willing buyers and sellers rather than government mandate. Some choices that may raise health care costs within a particular pool, serve interests in pursuits of happiness that outweigh that narrow analysis, imho. Married couples have been planning child birth for centuries, and given the barely replacement level birthrate over the past two decades, quite effectively so without government mandates to treat contraception like polio vaccinations….in my very humble opinion. God bless and if I ever revert back to my former party, I would have a rather long list of preventative mandates …smile
lineholder

Australia, whose government went in the same population-control direction ours has started going in recently, has come out with a new repopulation narrative…”one for Da, one for Mum, and one for Australia”.
rightland1111

I have been a victim of this very same thing. When I compared the Federal Government mandating a religion to distribute and perform actions against their beliefs with another religion that prohits actions
I was banned from a site. Nothing ugly…just factual. Legitimate question…yes. Why…because as I have stated in other threads, if the government is allowed to force the Catholic Religion to distribute and perform abortions or face a fine or closing up shop…why is it not legitimate to ask…why are mandates not applied equally under the law? No curse words…no nothing…just a question. But…it seems that in this country where flag burning is OK with regard to freedom of speech…asking a question about another religion is not. Not derogatory, just factual. Was it against their rules of posting…No. However, it could have been deemed by some fanatics as raising the bar. But then, I guess we know all about that. How many service people have died in Afghanistan because of a mistake?

Rush was trying to make a point…but he got into the weeds instead of staying on topic…meaning the First Amendment.
rlfast

Why should I subsidize your Medical Savings Account? And why should I subsidize it more heavily if you’re in a higher tax bracket than a lower one? Your tax break comes out of my pocket.

The gravy train is ended. I just can’t afford to carry all of you conservatives around on my back all of the time any longer.
Ann_W

But if the unions get their Cadillac plans, I get my MSA. That’s ridiculous.
demsaresatanic

a thing or two.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

teas
jakeofalltrades

Pregnancy and fertility are normal. You can’t insure against normal. Who buys No-Fire insurance? Who sells it?
jakeofalltrades

Otherwise, people wouldn’t bother selling their house – they could just burn it down when they’re done with it.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

don’t laugh…smile
Bill S

.
Vegas_Rick

nt
littlehouse18

And if they want to sell to Catholic institutions, they can provide plans that don’t cover it. I’m guessing that’s the way it is now.The govt shouldn’t be in there mandating coverages for anybody, let alone trying to force religious institutions to violate their beliefs.
Jack_Savage

Wait – the sink at the McDonalds is open – hurry, go wash your junk before they lock the door again!
Jack_Savage

And ED is simply a normal state of affairs. Of course, with women like Hillary, Andrea Mitchell and Janet Reno, it stands to reason.
Eyeofnewt

This is disgusting. What kind of commenting is this and to what end?
Jack_Savage

Typing slowly.

This person is a liberal. They probably participated in / sympathized with / watched with awe the Occupy protests. During the Occupy protests, the two items mentioned actually happened. Lots of times.

Therefore, to put their comments in perspective, and to give them the gravitas they deserved, I typed the comment. I am really, really sorry it went over your head or offended your sensibilities.

Whatever.
Samsara

and this thread makes a good point.

Insurance is meant to cover risk. I buy health insurance to protect myself and my family from the vagaries of chance. If I need an operation or medication, I get them because I pay in when I don’t need them. If you don’t pay, you shouldn’t expect the security of coverage. That means letting people decide to take the risk and suffer the consequences.

President Obama, and Governor Romney for that matter, are turning healthcare into a guaranteed conduit of care, regardless of what participants put into it. That is unsustainable, drives up costs, and puts everyone at greater risk.

This is the argument that needs to be made, and Mr. Limbaugh calling people names damages the case. Impotence and pregnancy are both part of life, and if you pay for insurance, you have coverage to help deal with it. That includes preventing both conditions. If you pay, you play. If not, get your pills off the internet like everyone else.

I?m not sure who you are referring to as “this person”, but I have several friends who are State Troopers, and I would never “dump” on their vehicles, if for no other reason than they could thoroughly kick my ass.
Jack_Savage

We are all arguing about insurance, and Viagra, and contraception, when we should be talking about government intervention and religious freedom. No one forced that woman to attend Georgetown, and she knew damn well what she was getting into as far as insurance coverage goes.

Put simply – if the government can make Georgetown provide contraception, it can make Georgetown provide abortion. Simple as that. If the government can make Georgetown provide abortion, it can make Brandeis provide pork. And so on.

This is such a slam dunk it isn’t even funny, and we are finding a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.
Samsara

From his web site:

“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

Well done Mr. Limbaugh.
Samsara

Well said Jack, and if you will pardon me playing off your metaphor, government is the referee, it should not be shooting the foul shots.
Flagstaff

at the time it would get a lot of attention. It did.

Less attention-getting, but more to the point, is the question, “Why is a college student who pays $60,000 per year (that was reported the other day, but I can’t cite it myself) to go to Georgetown law school asking us to pay for her entertainment? Will she be asking for tickets to Lincoln Center concerts next? It’s recreational sex, f’Gawd’s sake. If SHE plays, SHE should pay.”

She claims to be on some kind of scholarship, so it seems she thinks EVERYTHING should be included–she shouldn’t have to pay for anything. This line of reasoning is much more to the point and much less controversial than attempting to put her into a non-lawyer profession.

Now I’ll be nasty. I saw and heard the woman on TV. Why does she think she needs free birth control pills? If she’s having sex, I’ll bet the guys make sure they wear their raincoats to bed.
Juggernaut

generic which is chemically the same product. If she can’t swing $48 a year then she should transfer to George Washington University and save the tuition is sex is so import she’d lie to congress.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Does Carly Fiorina Just Not Get It?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL