Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke and popular radio host Rush Limbaugh have found themselves at the center of a media firestorm.
Earlier this afternoon, Fluke appeared on MSNBC, where she told host Andrea Mitchell about a supportive phone call she received from President Barack Obama after radio host Rush Limbaugh maligned her earlier this week. Upon hearing about Obama’s call with the woman, Limbaugh defended himself and railed against the president’s support for Fluke.
In an effort to mock the president, the popular host made a kissing noise with his lips and provided a great deal of commentary on the matter.
“That is so compassionate. What a great guy,” Limbaugh poked. “The president called her to make sure she’s okay. What is she, 30 years old? Thirty years old, student at Georgetown Law who admits to having so much sex she can’t afford it.”
In responding to the president‘s call and to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s allegations that the popular host’s attacks on Fluke were “inappropriate,” Limbaugh said that Obama should return the $1 million comedian Bill Maher gave to his Super PAC.
“Will President Obama now give back the $1 million that Bill Maher just gave his super PAC?” Limbaugh asked. “You want to get some of the tapes that Bill Maher has called Sarah Palin? The C word over and over again?”
I loved Rush’s use of the term ”round-heeled,” to describe Fluke.
It is SO old-fashioned some people had to go look it up!
LOL!
Did Obama offer her cash?
Is he joining the long line of her sex partners?
Why’d he call her?
Moochelle must have him cut off and his Chicago ‘Monica’ is worn out.
I thought Rush’s so called ‘attacks’ were perfect … He’s calling it like it is…
What I want to know is what kind of Contraceptives costs $3,000… a whole summer of working then the [ married couple ], who said contraceptives could no longer ‘fit into their budget’ just how much sex do all these people have? Can they not control themselves? Sheesh!
And just who are these people who [ demand ]”I” [we] $ taxpayer $ pay for their sex life?
We all know this is a huge distraction to take the talk off the most immediate issues of several years and what the candidates SHOULD be talking about… the [Economy – Jobs – Our Growing Debt – Horrendous and climbing Gas Prices – Foreign Oil Dependency – Terrorism] …. All of which Obumbles and his Ilk has done an [academically] piss poor job of Leading and Solving…. and Like a True Lefty Liberal Obumbles has done a great job of BLAMING it all on someone or something else…
I complain a lot to a co-worker who is like minded and this person always says “this is what they wanted” and I say “What who wanted?” and the person says “The country – this is who/what they voted for”… And I say “not me!!!” I got dragged into this crap! Then I try to have a good day…. and it’s very hard….it’s frustrating to live among so many [incapable] people…
“Fluke A Fake”…. http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/ …interesting.
No one who is now living or has ever lived on this planet can accuse me of defending ANYTHING Rush Limbaugh has ever said. He is a professional scab picker and what he said about that woman offended me because it was a personal attack as a rebuttal instead of directly addressing the statement. NO CLASS!!!
That being said, I want to go on record as also being hugely offended by that woman’s assumption that, of course, the tax payers should pay for her contraceptives. What do you suppose is next? $100 meal vouchers that the guy can use to take her out and satisfy her conditions requiring him to spend a minimum of $xx while courting her before she will loosen it up? Taxi cab vouchers for the unlucky one to flee back to their own lair later in the evening? Reimbursement for the subsequent minutes/hours she spends on the cell phone with her girlfriends getting positive feedback that she is not a slut and that everyone sleeps with a stranger if he spends enough money?
Hey Bees! I am back for at least a little while.
Dink, I too disagree with what Rush said. With that out of the way, she is a disgusting person.
She LIED about the costs to push an agenda and that is dispicible.
1.) For costs to add up to what she claimed they would have to be having sex 3x a day every day of the year.
2.) She expects others to pay for her sexual activities.
3.) IIRC someone went around the area of her college and found all kinds of free or low cost birth control.
She is a mindless drone who thinks we owe her something. We most cerratinly do not.
@Hard Right:
” 1.) For costs to add up to what she claimed they would have to be having sex 3x a day every day of the year. ”
I have a slight disagreement with this!! She DID say $3,000 over the course of law school which is ?? 3 or 4 years??. Its been a while since I was in the rubber market but I expect they still sell for a couple bucks a pop. If she was buying them at $4@, that would give her (with the $3,000) protection for a little less than 200 events a year– still more action than I was getting in college and at that rate, where was she getting the energy to study unless she had a steady live-in and skipped all the intro events like dinner or a couple hours getting loose at a bar.
@Dink Newcomb:
That is still VERY significant and rather questionable as to truthfulness. I’ve gone to college full time. If you have time to have sex every day, you are blowing off classes or classwork at the very least.
As I stated before, WTH should WE pay for her sexual activities?
She is a political shill of the left who believes the ends justifies the means.
$2.74 a DAY for birth control????
Assuming she wants to be careful about DISEASE as well as pregnancy, we are talking condoms.
A dozen of those cost ~$6 so she is a VERY busy 30-year-old.
When did she find the time to leave her bed and get to class or to the hearing?
Maybe she needs to modify her diet with less protein or less oysters or something.
Nan, when I was in my college days I was considered rather good looking and I actually had attractive married women chasing me (surprised the heck out of me too). Even then I wasn’t having sex daily. Not even in committed relationships. Granted things are even more lax on moral standards than back then, but almost everyday of the year?
Sorry Dink, but I just don’t think her numbers add up.
Not to mention I work in the health insurance industry and the ONLY way her cost MIGHT add up is if the woman is using a rather expensive brand only and not generic birth control. That would be radically stupid cost wise, unless doctor ordered. That also isn’t considering the diseases floating around out there if it’s for sex.
Supposedly Planned Parenthood gives out free birth control. Plus, for medical conditions many insurances do cover the pill.
So for those NOT having sex and suffering from a medical condition, there are alternatives and ways to get it covered.
A few links:
http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-does-not-speak-for-me/
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie%20pavlich/2012/02/28/georgetown_students_we_just_cant_fit_birth_control_into_the_budget_anymore
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/02/29/my-contraceptive-haul-its-easy-to-get-free-birth-control-in-the-big-city/
Rush defends himself:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks
Rush was out of line with name calling. I agree, but what about the insults other talk show hosts made to Sarah Palin? These are forgotten, conveniently.
I can’t figure out this law student.
1. She picks a Catholic university, run by Jesuits and complains that it follows the Catholic Church. Is she stupid?
I would not go to a synagogue and complain because Jews went there.
2. She claims that other law school friends are humiliated by pharmacists rejecting their insurance coverage. These are law students? Every lawyer I know has a tough hide. What kind of babies are graduating from law school? Would you want them to represent you?
3. What sort of birth control is she talking about? IUDs? Abortion?
4. Has she heard about Walmart,target, etc drug programs? Prices are cheap.
5. If she is such a smarty, and so broke, why is she not going to a clinic? Or heading to a public college/ university where condoms are in bowls and free? She could just hit the bathrooms with a large purse and have enough to last a month.
6. Is she using condoms for their purpose, or filling them with water and dropping the mon the heads of unsuspecting Jesuits from her dorm room or apartment?
Something smells here and it is not Georgetown university.
Maybe Fluke should charge for each ‘encounter’. Problem solved!
A female law student at Georgetown Law has fire in her drawers and someone should pick up the tab for her doing the humpy rumpy so she doesn’t need to work just to buy condoms; yes, I can see her point, and if she has an overwhelming desire to take flying lessons or become a falconer we should also pick up the tab. It all makes sense in a Liberal world that is trying to gather the weak minded to their cause; for instance, this simple-minded law student who can’t keep her thighs together for very long, casts doubt on her own intelligence by only boinking guys who can’t keep up with the cost of a condom. How much class or intelligence are we to assume a lawyer has, if this is a real situation. In this Marxist world of the near future, we should have no fear about running out of money or having no job if we want to do the down and dirty with some floozie, Obama will surely provide us with a reusable rain coat that will last for months or in this Fluke’s case. a week or ten days. Obama will provide, so unlimber your bean and shake it all around; Obama promises us all the sex we can handle with unlimited condoms; especially, for you weak minded split tail buggers with hinges on you heels.
Isn’t it amazing how this “nobody” has become a media sensation? We should have totally ignored her story and moved on.
@Helene:
I have heard she went there for just this purpose.
Social crusading to feed her ego and get rich and famous while doing it.
@FedUp:
The only difference between what you suggest and what she is demanding now, by her own admission, is in who pays for it. In your suggestion, her ‘johns’ would be ponying up the cash. In her suggestion, the university would be paying for her ‘johns’. Either way, the result is that she is, simply, a whore, engaging in the “oldest profession”.
Fluke is a parasite or a plant with a very low IQ. Whatever.
This disgusting flusie is a champion of women’s rights. This makes me laugh. This flies against your first ammendment.
What I see is nothing but lies and poor math. As per usual, Rush hit a home run with this.
Very poor diversion to cover a disaster of a presidency.
First, let’s look at Fluke’s real profession; agitator/community organizer/activist:
her resume includes:
Sanctuary for Families
Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court
Manhatten Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence
Coalition to Abolish Slavery andTrafficking
Polaris Project
Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County
Break the Cycle
Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project
National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund
Crime Victim and Sexual Assault Services
Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and The Law
President of Students for Reproductive Justice
VP of the Woman’s Legal Alliance
This is where a 2003 Cornell B.S. in Policy Analysis & Management and Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies will lead you.
It was first reported that Sandra Flukes was 23, she’s 30. It was also reported that she was attending Georgetown Law on a Womens Lawyers Association of Los Angeles public interest grant. She’s not. According to the WLALA, Sandra Fluke was the recipient of a one time, 2010 $5,000.00 grant “to fund the summer public interest projects that make governmental and social institutions and agencies more accessible and responsive to members of society whose interests are not otherwise adequately recognized or asserted.” (source the WLALA)
So here is the truth about our poor little law school student who is so worried about paying for her own contraception requirements:
She graduated Cornell in 2003 and spent the next six years being a professional activist/agitator. She was given a ONE TIME grant of $5,000.00 which covered only her summer activies (the non-sexual kind). Her tuition at Georgetown is $23,432.50 along with on-campus housing costs that range between $5,140-7,470. These fees represent, at minimum, a cost of $28,500 per semester, or $57,000 per law school year, not including her books, meals, any lab fees, transportation or condoms. The image of the poor law student is dashed on the rocks of hypocracy when you figure that she is complaining about the cost of her sexual activies while spending a small fortune attending Georgetown Law School.
Fluke was a Pelosi plant, because it requires a willing suspension of disbelief to think that Pelosi was not already familiar with Fluke due to the WLALA who maintain a strong lobby both in Sacramento and D.C. And why was this plant used? Because the left CANNOT win an argument on religious freedom, consequently, they had to change the dialog and make this about reproductive “justice.”
Is Sandra Fluke a slut? One could question the $3,000 over three years expense of contraception as being more than just an occassional need for a condom, and lead one to believe that Fluke’s requirements are greater. Yes, I would say she is a slut as the only difference between a slut and a prostitute is that the prostitute is smart enough to get paid for what Fluke, and her fellow female students at Georgetown, are seemingly giving out for free.
But a point you need to remember; Obama has made this a presidential issue by calling this slut and asking about her welfare. And he needs to be hit on his priorities every chance we get, as he has yet to give a call, inquiring about their welfare, to Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s parents.
@Scrapiron: Do you mean his Chicago ‘Monico’? No, that’s right, he died under questionable circumstances as soon as Obozo became a senator.
@Nan G: @Scrapiron: I think I remember a cartoon from my college days of a sweet young thing walking around with a bed strapped to her back (or maybe him given your perversion; ah, I mean persuasion ). The other off-color cartoon was of a young man with a board strapped to his rear end for the obvious use with a female partner of questionable virtue. Both of the old images flitted rapidly by my mind as I read Rush’s questions. That’s right, rhetorical questions emanating from the same quantitative analysis just provided by Dink and yourself.
Sorry for the injudicious thoughts. I don’t mean to offend. This is/was a total AttackWatch.com or Obamination set-up if there ever was one. 23 year old COED, Oops 30 year old political hack. If I had been Rush, the questions would not have been rhetorical.
Thanks for your analysis.
@Skookum:
Skook: WOW! You have outdone yourself once again.
What I haven’t figured out yet, is where is the Gay Guy complainant on lack of condoms for any penetration, no mater how slight?
@Marine72:
That won’t happen because it would completely destroy the theme the left is trying shove down our throats. That is, that it is a women’s reproductive “rights” issue. If they claimed the same for homosexual activities, the whole shroud of lies would be lifted and the American public would see it for what it really is. That is, a shakedown using government force to make someone else responsible for someone else’s sex life.
Our first Monica Lewinsky of the 21 st Century, what’s that you say it is a different deal: no, I don’t think so, the Elite Liberals ruin a young and stupid woman’s life so they can make a point, how is this not the same deal. Besides it is outrageously funny when you think of how utterly classless the Left is and of their willingness to use and destroy a woman’s reputation, to make a political point. Oh I know, every woman is a slut in the view of Marxism, but maybe, just maybe, there might be some women who have enough respect to admit the price of condoms is not important enough to make a complete fool of themselves on national TV.
Delightful and Priceless, our Democrat leadership has e about as much class as a stud monkey; you know what I mean if you have ever seen those boys in action. The comedy never stops with the Obama Clown Ship of State.
@johngalt:
Gotta say, John, I didn’t expect that from you. A women who uses birth control to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is a “whore” because she thinks insurance should cover it?
The comments on this thread certainly speak to the fact that Limbaugh doesn’t have a market cornered on misogyny. It’s really kind of sad and pathetic that adults can find such titillation in trying to calculate how often this woman has sex based on the $1,000 figure (by the way, you people do realize how most forms of birth control work, and that you don’t pay per sexual act?). Conservatives always seem shocked that they’re considered by many to be out of touch and hopelessly behind the times. I wonder why?
@Helene:
she states in the video that she was at the pharmacy when she found out that her prescription would not be filled. I assumed that she thought she should have only the best and I was pointing out that in the rest of the world, poor people use condoms and are glad to get them.
@Sageinmn:
It is only to us that she is a nobody. To the left, especially their women, she is “special”. Following another link (about owlcide to prevent them from killing another species of owls– got that? I am STILL confused by it) last night, I wound up at The Washington Post for the first time and had no idea that it was a liberal rag. I read the “insult” article and clicked reply without reading anything. I made approx. the same comments in that blog that I made here and wound up being flamed to cinders by a bunch of irate women. She is a hero to them.
@Tom:
No, I called the woman a whore because she basically testified that someone else should foot the bill so that she can continue to engage in sex. The contraceptive mandate supporters truly found a winner when they put her up as the face of their argument.
@johngalt:
That’s absolutely ridiculous and truly misogynistic . She testified that she believes that contraception is a component of a woman’s health care. An intelligent person understands that an unwanted baby costs the government and society a whole lot more than the contraception to prevent it. Regardless of that, you can disagree with her interpretation of what health care is, but to call her a whore is nothing more than misogyny plain and simple. Believe it or not, John, women have sex, and they’re not all whores. Your argument that it makes her a whore because she wants someone else to “foot the bill” for contraception (not sex) is truly asinine. It’s a health care question, not a question of how you’d like to force your puritanical sexual mores on the rest of society. You would never call a man in similar circumstances a whore.
I am truly sorry to see I was wrong when I briefly considered you a thoughtful person, John.
What’s really amazing to me when i read these type of comments on a Conservative message board is how lucky we are that Progressives were there to force our society out of the 19th century. Apparently The Past was a golden time when women (among others) knew their place; a time that so many people wistfully wish we still lived in. To read message board comments in the year 2012 by people who obviously look upon woman as chattel is amazing. God knows where we’d be if only Conservatives had ruled this country and put the brakes on all progress in terms or woman’s and civil rights.
Lets see…. 3000 bucks….. now, consider a buck a condom ( that’s GROSSLY OVERPRICING by the way) 4 year law degree… 365 days in a year…. um, 365 X 4…. 1460.. divide by 3000 condoms… that’s 2.05 times in the sack PER DAY, EVERY DAY.. for FOUR STRAIGHT YEARS… using Miss Flukes OWN TESTIMONY FIGURES….. AND, she asked, to be PAID for such “Activity”???
Seems Rush’s terms, were SPOT ON!!
By the way, if she claims to spend THAT MUCH TIME in the “sack”…. when is she in CLASS, or Studying?? No WONDER these new “College Grads” come out of school.. IN DEBT, and TOO STUPID to find a job/earn a living!!!
@ Tom…. I want to have lots of Sex.. you going to buy viagra for ME?? You think the TAXPAYER, should foot the bill?? YOU SHOULD, since you just stated, above, that LOTS OF SEX, is a RIGHT!! LOL!!! Think about it.. and….Quit Being a Schmuck…..
@Tom:
I am a very thoughtful person, Tom. I’m sorry that I have no compassion for a liar such as Ms. Fluke, who misrepresented herself and her circumstances as a gambit to convince people of her “plight”.
Remember this, Tom. She made a choice to attend that college. She very well could have attended a college somewhere else that would cater to her desires. What I find somewhat hard to believe is that you choose willingly to defend someone this reprehensible.
@Tom:
Tom, you do realize that the woman in question has misrepresented herself, and her situation, in order to score political points, don’t you? Answer me this. Why in the world are you defending a proven liar? This woman doesn’t really deserve all the attention she is getting, either from here, or any other blog, website, news media, etc.
One other question, Tom. Have you spoken up and defended Sarah Palin after the viciously nasty comments said about her? Or Michelle Bachmann? Or SC Governor Nikki Haley? Any conservative woman? If not, can you kindly step down from your pulpit and stop lecturing us.
@johngalt:
You’re a thoughtful person who thinks women you accuse of lying are also whores. I get it: you sexualize moral judgments with women. That is actually quite common. When a women doesn’t behave in a way you approve of, shes not only wrong, she’s a whore.
You’re such a cliche, John. I don’t find it funny though, as I image the women in your life don’t.
@johngalt:
If anyone called any of those women “whores”, that’s terrible. A person who calls women “whores” is a terrible person, I agree.
Tom, i see you have no comment about the figures I gave, showing her “testimony” to be a complete fabrication of truth….. don’t you live in the same world, the FACTUAL world, the rest of us do?? Or, do you willingly just take B.S> as “your truth”.. and then ignore reality?
You said…. “You’re a thoughtful person who thinks women you accuse of lying are also whores. I get it: you sexualize moral judgments with women. That is actually quite common. When a women doesn’t behave in a way you approve of, shes not only wrong, she’s a whore.
You’re such a cliche, John. I don’t find it funny though, as I image the women in your life don’t.”
AHH, typical liberal mindset.. TWIST the facts, to suit your beliefs…. he didn’t place his spin on her words, he took her words, and put them into REAL context!! What name, do YOU give a woman, who says she gets laid TWICE a day, minimum, every day, for 4 years straight, and wants OTHERS, to compensate her for doing so??
We’re WAITING Tom, WHAT do you call such a woman???
Hank, let me guess: you call her horny!
Um, uh, er, yeah, THAT’S the word that came to mind! LOL!!
Frankly, if she’d have minded her own business, no one would have called her ANYTHING…. but, SHE chose to enter the public arena, and make such nutty claims so.. the bets are off!
Did she bother to THINK, of what HER STATS she gave, coupled with wanting to be PAID for it, would sound like, when analyzed?? She hasn’t learned much, then, especially for going to such an upper crust institution of higher learning! LOL!!
@Tom:
Nope, that certainly isn’t why I labeled her a whore, Tom.
Again, that isn’t why I called her a whore, Tom.
Not sure what the “cliche” is, Tom, but the women in my life don’t have any problem with how I treat them. And believe me, if I was doing something they didn’t like, they would certainly let me know.
As for Ms. Fluke, her testimony, that she gave herself, is her damning evidence. It’s not about reproductive rights, Tom. It’s about getting money to continue her promiscuous sex-life.
From Merriam-Webster;
Are you going to label Merriam-Webster as misogynist, Tom.
@johngalt:
@Hankster58:
No, you guys are probably not liberals unless you are here being disingenuous to anger conservatives. The link below is to the full 11 min video of her statement. Listen to it and come back, please, and specify where she lies about her circumstances! She basically claims to be a non-affluent law student. She mentions NOWHERE in it the frequency or desired frequency of her sexual encounters– certainly not the ” a woman, who says she gets laid TWICE a day, minimum, every day, for 4 years straight” figures you have extrapolated from a comparative cost of rubbers..
She does NOT ANYWHERE specify the nature of those sexual encounters either– this woman may possibly be married as is the case with a friend she mentions later in the statement.
The issue you should be debating, without baseless personal attacks, is her expectation of contraception at the expense of the taxpayer and the further selfishness of expecting the most expensive, least demanding way.
The twice a day, relates EXACTLY, to the figures given. SHE gave them, not me! OK.. perhaps, it’s 4 times 3 days a week.. whatever… BC pills are no more costly…. So, why don’t YOU explain to US.. where the $3000 dollar figure comes from?? SHE threw out the stats.. now, BACK EM UP!!! (Sorry, not holding my breath, Liberals very seldom can back up their BS….)
NOW, you say.. perhaps she is married?? Let HUBBY pay!! YOU think, we should finance COUPLES too?? LOL!! You lunatic! LOL!!!
And, you say, she wasn’t talking about “herself”… then, WHO?? Or, as many believe, it was typical MADE UP Liberal BS….. The entire deal, really was a BIG JOKE, with the QUEEN of BS and lies presiding over it.. Pelosi.
Have a nice day…..
@Hankster58:
From your reply, you apparently DID NOT re-watch the video of her statement, if indeed you ever watched it at all, despite your vigorous claims to know what she said. “The twice a day, relates EXACTLY, to the figures given. SHE gave them, not me! “ In the beginning, she relates her own problems and in the latter part, she mentions the problems of other women.
She states that her chosen method of birth control costs $3,000 over the four years in law school, PERIOD! This is most certainly not what she would pay for prophylactics unless there are new brands I have never heard of.
My contention all along, has been that not only does she want us to pay for contraception, she wants the high end Mecerdes model, not the old 1984 Yugo version that most po’ folks can afford. Since the expensive methods will provide protection 24/7/365, she will certainly have protection (against pregnancy) for more daily acts of copulation than the human body will sustain but it says NOTHING about the frequency of acts she actually engages in– AND nothing can validly be extrapolated from those facts beyond the frequency POSSIBLE with a cheaper method.
Now, in rebuttal, you have called me a lunatic while rephrasing MY case! Thank you sir for the excellent illustration of your irrational and ill-informed appraisal of the subject.
This quote below is part of an article which lists a huge range of costs for contraceptives and starts listing the cheapest source– black market drugs available through Craigslist.
$3,000/4 years = $62.50/month, well within the range indicated in the quote below and supportive of her expense claims in her statement!
@Dink Newcomb:
Ms. Fluke allowed herself to be portrayed as something she is not, even as the media was rushing to jump on her “story”. She allowed herself to be portrayed as a 23 year-old, meanwhile she is 30+. She allowed herself to be portrayed as a simple law school student, who unwittingly chose to attend Georgetown and it’s health services that didn’t cover contraception, meanwhile she specifically chose Georgetown for reasons beyond the law degree that had to do with women’s reproductive rights activism.
I stand by my assertion that Ms. Fluke is a liar.
@johngalt:
Well, I have to admit that I do not have a clue what she had in her heart! BUT, if you are discussing what she said, none of those topics were discussed by her in her statement! They were not even broached by that animated corpse, Nancy Pelosi, who introduced her the way you would trot out your beloved pet dog. I have seen no evidence that asserts she was part of what the news reported about her after her annoying appearance. Therefore, your accusations would seem to be backed up by nothing but your intention to disparage her publicly.
Incidentally, when I initially saw that clip on the news, the word that instantly sprang to my mind was the same as Limbaugh’s comment. In a later conversation with my sister, she admitted the same thing. I am NOT ashamed of my feelings but I am trying mightily not to engage in vilification. What I am trying to get across here is that if you want to occupy and maintain the high ground, you need to engage in sane, rational discourse where your unsupported opinions are presented as such rather than some absolute truth you have derived from who knows where.
@Dink Newcomb:
Neither do I, Dink. And no, I’m not discussing what is included within her testimony on Feb. 23rd. I am discussing how she has let the media portray her much differently than what she actually is. That is, as both an innocent 23-year old law student, and as an unwitting victim of Georgetown’s healthcare policy. I suggest you read the several articles prior to her appearing at that committee, and the ones immediately following it, and then reconcile that with Fluke’s own words and record. She allowed herself to be portrayed as such, and in so doing became complicit in misrepresentation.
Now, while I admit that my comments may be my opinions, they are not unsupported.
@johngalt:
John,
Thank you for a calm, rational reply. I have been away from this blog (and all others) for a while. I have to confess a somewhat personal agenda because in the interim, I was due to circumstances, unable to summon the necessary concentration for the give and take in this venue. My digital contact was primarily with others through e-mail and I have developed a huge distaste for the public’s current SOP of believing EVERYTHING (scurrilous, bizarre, stupid, mundane, etc.) they read that piques their interest, enhancing it to “make it sound better” and sending it along to all 250 people on their contact list. As a consequence, my burden of proof at least claims to derive from valid sources although they are few and far between. To date, I have seen no other documents that go beyond unsupported claims to show she WAS party to the confusion about her status and why she was in that school. An intentional misrepresentation and therefore a lie, would require her or others with her knowledge to make false statements. I will spend some time looking for some reliable source that shows her a part of some cabal formed to deceitfully affect the health care debate.
Apparently she was on “The View,” today.
Says, one: Rush’s apology was not sincere since he did not call her on the phone.
Says, two: She would NOT accept a phone call from Rush.
OK, so who made this ”personal?”
The loose woman who went on the record about how much SEX she constantly has and how much birth control she needs ….
OR….
The guy who berated her for thinking WE should PAY for it?
It is the Left who has set the bar on this issue….
THEN it is the Left who tried to move those goalposts when they didn’t like the way their opponent was scoring through those goalposts.
Fluke’s agenda-driven course is set out here…
http://reporepro.lsrj.org/2011/07/30/finding-our-footing-on-conservative-campuses/
In Nikki Tuttle’s Finding our footing on conservative campuses article for the Repo(ssess)Repro(ductive Justice) site Fluke is mentioned as leading a packed room in a discussion on opposition in regard to facilitating a comprehensive conversation about reproductive justice on conservative campuses.
Read it and weep.
It was posted LAST July!
@Nan G:
@Nan G:
To repeat my request for an elimination in this blog of unfettered vitriolic emotional comments without ANY citations to prove them. I have re-watched the ENTIRE mind numbing 11 min of her statement and she makes NO mention of quantity of sex acts, only the desire to preclude pregnancy. Additionally, I read the article cited in your second post followed with browsing around the site to read a number of other articles full of political rhetoric. All the articles I read on the site CLEARLY establish that she is an activist member of a women’s rights organization who is opposed to your point of view but there is absolutely no mention of the intent to lie to or deceive the media and public. Nowhere on this site, is there ANY mention of how frequently Fluke has sex either.
In consequence, I would suggest that you, JohnGalt and others are making angry, vile statements that have yet to be substantiated by you or YOUR cabal about someone that most everyone here acknowledges is deluded, in an attempt to make her look worse. I see your name here frequently and this is a discredit to you and casts doubt (in my mind at least) on your sincerity. If you can cite a reliable source which permits ANYONE to call her a slut (you don’t even know that she is NOT married) or permits ANYONE to call her a liar or deceiver because of her activism, I will abjectly apologize.
I await your proof!
BTW- I have simple tastes and I collect words as a hobby. My gift to you is my latest find and I will bet that you mutter it with my name over and over.