Where is MY phone call, President @BarackObama?

Posted by: ST on March 2, 2012 at 6:09 pm

Probably the most stupid story you’ll read all week:

President Barack Obama on Friday phoned the Georgetown University law student who was called a “slut” by Rush Limbaugh to find out if she is OK.

“He encouraged me and supported me and thanked me for speaking out about the concerns of American women,” Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student said. “And what was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So I just appreciated that very much.”

Fluke, who said she had received Obama’s call while waiting in the green room before her interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, also said of the phone call, “He did express his concern for me and wanted to make sure that I was ok, which, I am. I’m ok.”

Minutes after Fluke appeared on MSNBC, White House press secretary Jay Carney confirmed the call in a press briefing with reporters, saying, “He wanted to offer his support to her. He wanted to express his disappointment that she has been the subject of inappropriate personal attacks and thank her for exercising her rights as a citizen to speak out on an issue of public policy.”

Carney noted that the call was a “very good conversation” that lasted several minutes.

“This is not a quote from him (Obama), but I think he thinks they were reprehensible, they were disappointing,” Carney said. “It is disappointing that those kinds of personal and crude attacks could be leveled against someone like this young law school student who was simply expressing her opinion on a matter of public policy and doing so with a great deal of poise.”

Could Obama possibly be anymore theatrical here? Of course not! Playing to the crowd is his speciality as our American Idol celebrity President. I’m disgusted.

But while we’re on the topic of the President wanting to “reach out” to someone he feels is “acting with courage and poise”, I’d like to demand an answer from the WH as to why I and many other conservative women who have boldly spoken out against rabid feminist dogma for years, decades, etc have not received a similar phone call from him, considering the treatment we’ve received? Here’s a sampling of what’s been said to me (LANGUAGE WARNING):

ST is the poster child for abortion on demand. Had her parents known what kind of psychopathic monster they had sired, I am sure they would have aborted her. Hopefully, that repugnant creature is past the age of reproduction.

Evil Progressive – 5/28/2006


I hope you all die of cancer. I hope some of it is skin cancer that starts at the tip of your nose and covers your face and leaves you writhing and moaning in pain until you expire in the soiled bed of a third world cancer ward. I hope your families are hit by a bus during your funerals and I hope that anyone who is angered or hurt by what I’ve just written catches HIV from a rapist. How’s that folks? Biting enough? Cutting? I hope so because aftet all of this misery is visited upon you (And I pray to Jesus it will) THEN I can bash you regardless of your ‘moral high ground’ just like ann!

Kneelb4zod! – 6/8/2006


Blatant censorship. Sister Toldjah is another neocon cunt on the bush payroll. She needs to die like her coward leader.

The Debtonator – 1/16/2006


I think you a basically a bag of shit. Hopefully you will be and Virginia will be a victim of a hate crime so you will truly understand. Once people start hate criming ignorant pigs, look out!

Tanja – 4/30/09


I hope you get raped and left in a ditch to die so your family can see someone make callous remarks about your death!

And no this isn’t a threat. I don’t have sex with morons.

“Bob” – 4/30/09


i just read your blog and it is apparent to me that whoever enabled you to use a computer should be tortured and shot. I hope you die. This site is the most offensive and discusting peice of literature on the internet. If i ever found you i would rape you out of spite and then burn your face off with acid and fire.

jack – 1/16/10, via email


I’m sure some liberals would say that because I write under a pseudonym and the people who said the above quotes were anonymous, that what they said “doesn’t matter.” Even if that were true (it isn’t), what about the prominent conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin who HAVE been called disgusting terms – with malicious intent – by well-known Obama-supporting liberals like Bill Maher and others? Where are their phone calls, President Obama?

In seriousness, they don’t really want a phone call from you. Nor do I. Because, unlike “feminists” who try to pass 30 year-olds off as 23 year old “law students”, none of us are interested in playing the “victim card.” We’ll leave that to desperate “progressive” women who, most of the time, can only get attention on any given issue by lying their a**es off about it! It was worth writing this post, though, to point out the glaring hypocrisy of this administration that is supposedly so “concerned” with how “courageous” are treated when they speak out.

For the record, I’m with Malkin on the issue of Rush calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” – but that doesn’t mean Fluke and her feminist hangers-on in DC are off the hook for what they’re doing, either.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


48 Responses to “Where is MY phone call, President @BarackObama?”


  1. ElliePTweet says:

    You nailed it, Toldjah. And, do the names Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, et. al., ring any bells? Bill Maher, anyone? Ed Schultz? Here’s the difference – Conservative women are called ‘sluts’ and worse BEFORE they recount their escapades in front of Congress and the cameras. In other words, the difference is: Rush told the truth about this 30is-Manchurian-Nympho.

  2. Tango says:

    ….am I the only one noticing that the MSM has succeeded in gently turning the national attention away from the really important stuff, and instead has people focused on these (frankly) circus stories?

    I harken back to an earlier campaign, when “it’s the ECONOMY, stupid!” was the rallying cry. Folks, it still IS the economy! And it’s about Barry’s destruction of it, now in its fourth year.

    Let us refuse distraction, keeping our eye on the real target: Barrack Hussein Obama.

  3. Carlos says:

    Ya know, back in the day law students (even at the U of O, male or female) didn’t have enough time to slut around. Maybe this is why we’re up to our noses in pig poop lawyers?

    And $3,000 a year for contraception? What’s she getting, a solid gold insert? Fer cryin’ out loud, that’s more than $300 bucks a month (counting the school year only – I’m assuming she sucks off the parental money teat during the summer)! Hasn’t she ever heard of (the tax-supported) PP? If she’s so dense she has to spend THAT kind of money for birth control, she doesn’t belong in law school (or any other school, as far as that goes) and would be a prime candidate for one of her hero Margaret Sanger’s programs to rid the country of the mentally incompetent.

  4. Xrlq says:

    There is a difference between the vile, hateful crap Evil Progressive, Kneelb4zod!, The Debtonator, Tanja, Bob and Jack wrote vs. the vile, hateful crap Rush said on the air, but it’s not what your commenters are insinuating. The real difference is that these guys are nobodies, while Rush is somebody. Defending or even downplaying this indefensible slur only serves to prove one thing: that conservatives who decry liberals for their lack of civility are every bit as hypocritical as liberals who do the same. If you condemn high profile liberals for their sexist attacks on conservative women – and you should – then you owe it to come down just as hard on Rush for this. The notion that it’s not OK for their side to call women nasty names for vocally supporting positions they disagree with, but somehow is OK for people on our side to do precisely the same thing, is the textbook example of hypocrisy.

    Is Obama’s reaction over the top? Sure, but what did anyone expect? If I were his adviser I’d have advised him to do the same. Don’t blame the other team for milking our side’s “own goal” for all it’s worth. Blame the idiot on our side for scoring that own goal. Yes, I did just call Rush Limbaugh an idiot. No, that isn’t the same as him calling Fluke a slut. I called him an idiot for saying something extremely stupid and not promptly apologizing for it. He called her a slut for expressing an opinion he disagreed with. Not. The. Same. Thing.

  5. ST says:

    The real difference is that these guys are nobodies, while Rush is somebody.

    Which is a point I addressed in my post. Here:

    I’m sure some liberals would say that because I write under a pseudonym and the people who said the above quotes were anonymous, that what they said “doesn’t matter.” Even if that were true (it isn’t), what about the prominent conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin who HAVE been called disgusting terms – with malicious intent – by well-known Obama-supporting liberals like Bill Maher and others? Where are their phone calls, President Obama?

    Don’t you read what I say anymore at all, Jeff?

    The notion that it’s not OK for their side to call women nasty names for vocally supporting positions they disagree with, but somehow is OK for people on our side to do precisely the same thing, is the textbook example of hypocrisy.

    Who said any such thing? No one here, certainly not me.

    Is there a particular reason you can’t express your disagreements with the opinions of others without resorting to condescension anymore? Furthermore, if you are going to go on a rant, would you at least let it be against something I SAID rather than something I DIDN’T say? I can understand if you want to go on a generalized rant but please stop using me as a proxy for them. Thanks.

  6. Eyago says:

    No. She was not called a slut for having a different opinion. Her argument basically boils down to this:

    1. I have sex.
    2. Having sex costs money.
    3. I should get compensated for my costs.

    Rush’s point: If you want to get paid for having sex, what does that make you?


  7. Xrlq says:

    ST, of course I read what you wrote. I don’t think the fact that you are anonymous is an issue, nor is the fact that the trolls are – it’s that the trolls would still be nobodies even if their identities were known. The fact that a few nobodies on the Internet are classless jerks is, in the grand scheme of things, a nonstory. Bill Maher is not a complete nobody, of course, but I don’t think his following is comparable to Limbaugh’s. Further, I’m not aware of even Maher dipping to this low. Calling a former Vice Presidential candidate the C-word is unacceptable, of course, but in the end, all that’s really said is “I don’t like that person.” Calling a (relatively) young woman a “slut” for expressing an opinion he didn’t like takes it to a whole ‘nother level. That word has a somewhat more … ahem … specific meaning. So specific that when said of a woman, it’s traditionally been considered defamatory per se.

    When I attacked “the notion that it’s not OK for their side…” I was attacking just that, a notion. I wasn’t attacking you or anyone else in particular. I did get that sense from some of your commenters, though, and really got it from the Michelle Malkin rant you linked to:

    My two cents: Yes, we’re seeing the usual left-wing double standards when it comes to defending women against sexist putdowns. The language Rush used is completely unacceptable…except when it’s used against the likes of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, myself, and every other prominent female conservative in public life, of course.
    I’ll tell you why Rush was wrong. Young Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law is not a “slut.” She’s a moocher and a tool of the Nanny State. She’s a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers.

    So without even taking a breath to say wrong is wrong, she goes right after perceived liberal double standards, as though either liberals or their double-standards were to blame for Rush’s statement. And then she says, in effect, that it’s not wrong to fling poo at a young law student for speaking out about an issue she believes in – he just flung the wrong brand of poo by calling her a slut instead of a moocher. That’s only marginally less nasty toward Fluke than your commenters were toward you. And again, they’re nobody. Malkin is not.

  8. Xrlq says:

    Eyago, nice try, but no. It’s one thing to argue that all health care costs should be borne by the individual, and quite another to single out the specific health care costs associated with having sex. Though if I were to buy that argument I’d have to concede Malkin’s point that “moocher” is a better slur than “slut,” since the costs of birth control do not vary with the number of partners. A woman who has sex with the same man every night is at the same risk of unwanted pregnancy as a woman who has sex with a different man every night. The latter can reasonably be described as a slut. The former, not so much. But their birth control needs are identical.

  9. Carlos says:

    Why is everyone getting up in arms about the term “slut?” Depending on a specific context it will mean prostitute, but other than that it means a lewd woman. From what I heard in her testimony (especially the cost of contraception for her being $3,000), she is the definition of a lewd woman.

    Dress a pig up any way you want, but lipstick don’t make it pretty.

  10. Morgan Michaels says:

    The Fluke Dialogue

    Argument: Our protagonist first threatens to harm herself if her demands are not met. When this fails, she attempts to convince her antagonist that they must meet her demands or inflict harm upon themselves.

    Sandy Fluke: [Pointing imaginary weapon at self] Give me mandatory contraception coverage or my reproductive organs get it!
    Parasitologist: Uh, No?
    Sandy Fluke: I mean it, I’ll do it!
    Parasitologist: So? Its not my reproductive organs, what do I care?
    Sandy Fluke: You monster!
    Parasitologist: Yeah, I’m a bad person.

    Sandy Fluke: Well, I’ll have unprotected sex, then you’ll be sorry!
    Parasitologist: Why?
    Sandy Fluke: I’ll get an STD!
    Parasitologist: So? Why would I care?
    Sandy Fluke: I’ll give it to other people!
    Parasitologist: Anyone stupid enough to have unprotected sex with you deserves an STD.
    Sandy Fluke: You’re a monster!
    Parasitologist: Yep.
    Sandy Fluke: Well you’ll still have to pay for the cost of treating all those STDs.
    Parasitologist: No. I won’t.
    Sandy Fluke: Well think of the lost productivity and profits!
    Parasitologist: I’m not your employer, and I don’t count my chickens before they hatch. You can’t threaten me with the loss of a value you haven’t created yet, and given that you just threatened to give yourself an STD on purpose to blackmail society into forcing your employer to provide contraception coverage, I’m not sanguine about the chances you ever will.

    Sandy Fluke: Then I’ll get pregnant!
    Parasitologist: And?
    Sandy Fluke: Then you’ll have to pay for the abortion.
    Parasitologist: No I won’t.
    Sandy Fluke: Then I’ll have to give myself one. Because I can’t pay for one. I might die from complications like bleeding.
    Parasitologist: Sounds like a bad idea, but suit yourself.
    Sandy Fluke: What sort a monster would let me risk my own life rather than pay for the abortion of a child I threatened to conceive to blackmail society into providing me with mandatory contraception insurance?
    Parasitologist: This one, I suppose.
    Sandy Fluke: Well think of the loss of productivity and medical services I’ll consume.
    Parasitologist: Again, I don’t count my chickens before they hatch. Anyone dumb enough to threaten to get themselves pregnant in order to use the cost or dangers of abortion to extort contraception coverage was always a safe bet to be a burden on society.

    Sandy Fluke: Then I’ll bring the baby to term.
    Parasitologist: Sounds like a plan.
    Sandy Fluke: Then you’ll have to pay for WIC, and other childcare related services.
    Parasitologist: No, I won’t.
    Sandy Fluke: Then the child will starve.
    Parasitologist: So?
    Sandy Fluke: You monster! You would let an innocent child starve.
    Parasitologist: It wasn’t my clever plan to get pregnant through irresponsible sexual behavior. If you care so little for your own offspring that you threaten to get yourself pregnant in hopes of blackmailing society with your baby’s death to extort contraception coverage, who’s the monster?
    Sandy Fluke: Well, I will find a way to raise my child in poverty. This will ruin my life. It will place an increased burden on society and my underprivileged kinder will grow up to be a maladjusted, sociopathic, criminal!
    Parasitologist: Ruin your own life if you want. Society will only suffer the burdens it chooses to place on itself, and the imaginary Sangeresque horde of underprivileged Georgetown juvenile delinquents doesn’t phase me in the least. The only anti-social personality from a broken home I worry about is already in the White House. I hear you spoke with him recently, did you find him inspiring?

    If this were the political dialogue in the U.S. do you think anyone would be concerned about trivialities like whether ‘slut’ is descriptive or inherently misogynistic?

  11. Dave B says:

    Just think. In a couple of years she’ll be charging $250.00 an hour for her services as a lawyer. Talk about being screwed!

  12. Bill G says:

    Unless a years supply of contraceptive pills costs three large, Ms. Fluke is using up a lot of condoms.
    And now that we know she is not a 23 year old student but a 30 year old activist trying to force her theology it is clear that Rush should apologize.
    To sluts.

  13. Jim McDonald says:

    If I started phoning 30 year old party girls, my Wife would have choice words for me…

  14. Xrlq says:

    Carlos, you do understand that the cost of contraception does not vary according to the number of partners, don’t you? Either her $3,000 figure is correct or it is not. If it is not correct, attack her on that. But if it is correct, then it’s the same $3,000 price tag whether she sleeps with one steady boyfriend (or husband) throughout the year, or whether she hooks up with a different man every night.

  15. david foster says:

    As a Georgetown Law student, this woman is well-positioned to be not only in the upper 1% of incomes, but in the upper 1/2 of 1%. Given the heavy government involvement in higher education, it’s a pretty good bet that much of the true cost of her education is already taxpayer-subsidized…and basically, she wants even more of it to be.

    Meanwhile, long-distance truck drivers are finding it increasingly difficult to afford the cost of on-the-road showers…


    Why should truck drivers be subsidizing Georgetown Law students?

  16. Carlos says:

    @Xlrq: My point, obviously lost on you, wasn’t that she had a lot of partners (although, being unmarried and needing that much contraception that particular assumption would seem to be correct), it was that her figure for the cost of contraception was, to say the least, excessive.

    Probably because she has studied arguments from such notable lawyers as NC’s Mr. Edwards and IL’s Mr. Obama. They both seem to have a penchant for exaggeration.

  17. Eyago says:


    There is an old joke about a man who sits down next to a woman in a bar and opens up a suitcase full of money and asks her: “would you sleep with me for a million dollars?” She looks at him and at the suitcase full of money and the says “Yes.” The man then pulls out a one hundred dollar bill, closes the suitcase and hands the woman the single bill and says: “Your place or mine?” The woman slaps and man and exclaims: “What do you take me for!?” The man calmly replies: “We already established that. Now we are just haggling about the price.”

    It is quite understood what the point was there in that joke. It had nothing to do with the number of partners, it had to do with being paid for it. That is the point you are dancing around. The point is, she is saying she needs to be compensated for her sex. Nothing needs to be said regarding how many partners. The issue is the activity and the compensation demanded for that activity. That is the satire that Rush was getting at. You seem to be haggling over the number of partners.

  18. ST says:

    No, Jeff (XLRQ), I don’t think you did read what I wrote in full because if you did, you’d have known I’d already addressed the “nobodies” argument that I figured a *liberal* would try to use. Not only that, but there were only two or three comments in this thread when you indicated you were addressing what my commenters wrote, even though what you said in your initial post in response had NOTHING to do with what the few who wrote here had said. You just used my post and their comments as a proxy for a generalized rant against what YOU see as some type of double standard from the right.

    The overall point in all of this, my rant, Michelle’s, and others that perhaps you would have gotten had you not been so busy trying to ram your opinion down everyone’s throats, is the left wing hypocrisy when it comes to vicious attacks on women from the political opposition, no matter whether those attacked “matter” or the people who attacked “matter” (really?!) – it’s a national outcry when a liberal woman is attacked, called derogatory names but when a conservative woman is attacked similarly, rarely is the outcry the same. Most of the time it’s muted. I LIVE this crap (on admittedly smaller scale than ‘the bigs’) so I have a little more insight to it than someone looking at the issue from the outside. This is a fact, and none of your nitpicking as to “what’s the worst insult, who matters, etc” nonsense changes ANY of that. All of this is part of what is called a “national dialogue” that we are all engaged in and it is not acceptable to use certain language no matter who “matters” or not, and no matter whether the attacker “matters” or not.

    The GOP gets crucified regularly for allegedly coarsening the debate in this country with comments like the ones Rush made, but liberals routinely get a free pass most of the time (exceptions to the rule, of course) when they say the same — or worse. Their behinds are not the ones who are made to feel ANY responsibility for their part in cheapening the discourse in this country. That is part of the point!

    Related to that, for you to essentially say that calling a woman a “c*nt” isn’t as bad as calling her a slut is astonishing to me. Is this really the line of argument you’re going to use to rationalize the “which attacks mean more” point you’re trying to make? Really unbelievable. I’ll keep that in mind the next time I’m called a c*nt. “At least he didn’t call me a slut!” Also, for you to suggest that Malkin was saying it was “ok” for Rush to say what he said indicates to me that you really didn’t read what she said, either.

    Stop knee-jerk reacting, Jeff, and start reading what people actually say next time. It will do a lot in terms of engaging in the type of discourse we should be having on this issue but are not.

  19. Severian says:

    Wait, weren’t there lots of “slut walks” recently where lots and lots of liberal women, excuse me, womyn proudly proclaimed their sluthood with signs and dress? I’m confused, slut is good or bad? :-?

    Nothing Rush said is any worse than Debbie Downer, DNC head, says almost daily. And if Rush is 25% worse, integrate Debbie’s remarks over the months she’s been spewing vile rhetoric and it’s not even close. The only bad thing about Rush’s rant is it gave the Dems and their media lapdogs a way to change the subject away from the lying BS that this womyn spewed in Congress. She’s a potted plant, hardcore leftist spewing fake numbers as directed by Pelosi and company.

  20. Xrlq says:

    It’s not a knee-jerk reaction to say that a generalized insult (e.g., the C-word) is less serious than falsely accusing someone of something. You can sue for one and not the other, and for good reason. Let’s set aside the First Amendment issues relating to public figures and pretend Bill Maher, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke are all just private individuals. Bill calls Sarah a c*nt without justification in front of his friends. Rush calls Sandra a slut without justification in front of HIS friends. Both women’s feelings are hurt, and both come into my office seeking legal assistance.

    Sarah has no case, as Bill hasn’t accused her of anything specific. By calling him that particularly nasty name, all he has communicated is that he himself is a boorish, foul-mouthed jerk, and that he really, really, really doesn’t like Sarah. All of which is true. Bill really is a boorish, foul-mouthed jerk, and he really, really, really doesn’t like Sarah. So vile as his statement was (and it was indeed vile), he hasn’t defamed her.

    Sandra’s case is different. Calling her a slut doesn’t just mean Rush doesn’t like her. It means something a wee bit more specific than that. Something which, if believed by any of the people who heard it, could damage her reputation in the community. That’s a classic example of actionable slander. In fact, a statement that a woman is unchaste has traditionally been considered defamatory per se, i.e., so inherently defamatory that harm to reputation need not be proved. I didn’t make this distinction up.

    Or look at it this way. How many people can you name who think any less of Sarah Palin because they heard Bill Maher call her a c*nt? Any? Yet the Internet abounds with people who think less of Sandra Fluke because Rush Limbaugh called her a slut. That’s why one is worse than the other, not because the words themselves are (obviously, c*nt is a by far the uglier word, in a vacuum).

    Yes, there were only two or three comments here at the time I posted my first comment. No, I wasn’t just responding to those two, but also to Malkin (who, again, has COMPLETELY dropped the ball on this one by jumping straight into tu quoque mode rather than condemning the very thing liberals should have condemned in the past) and to several of your FB commenters. Again, it was directed toward a general idea that was popping up in multiple places, and not against any particular person, least of all you.

  21. ST says:

    Who said anything about legal arguments, Jeff? For crying out loud! I’m done with this.

  22. Xrlq says:

    Sigh. The legal distinction is there to reflect a moral one: some words mean specific things, and others do not. No one thinks less of Sarah Palin because of the nasty name Bill Maher called her, since all it connotes is the obvious fact that Maher himself doesn’t like her. Many, by contrast, think less of Sandra Fluke because of the nasty name Rush Limbaugh called her. That is why a specific smear (murderer, liar, cheat, slut, etc.) is a much bigger deal than a generalized epithet (jerk, d*ck, c*nt, a**hole, whatever). And I say that without condoning either. Liberals and conservatives of goodwill ought to condemn both.

  23. Severian says:

    Well, one thing’s for sure, this has one poster’s panties twisted up so tightly they’re singing soprano. Maybe xlrq is desperately trying to get that young coed at the library to notice him? Snort.

  24. ST says:

    Right, X, please get exasperated because I fail to understand why you brought in legal arguments to a discussion where we’re talking about double standards and hypocrisy and the level of discourse in this country, not whether something meets a legal definition of worse or better, or ok or not.

    I don’t give a royal rip what is “legally” more wrong in this discussion because we’re not talking about a damn lawsuit. Besides, just because something is may be more “legally” wrong than something else doesn’t mean it is on a moralistic level as well. But I guess this is the only road left take since your “slut is worse than c*nt” argument fell flat.

    As far as “condemnation” of both, get off your high horse, X. Just because conservatives point out the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to issues like this doesn’t mean they’re giving their side a “free pass.” Most aren’t. In fact, most of the time when “our side” has strayed off course I see a heck of a lot more roundhouse condemnation than I do when the same happens to the left, regardless of your belief that most of us are raging hypocrites. Maybe you’d notice that if you weren’t so busy berating others for not being as perfectly consistent as you are.

  25. Xrlq says:

    You want to know what “falls flat?” Here’s what falls flat: claiming it’s worse to use crude language that reflects only on the speaker himself than it is to spread lies about other people. Almost as flat is the phony double-standard argument. If there really were a double standard at work here, Bill Maher would never have called Sarah Palin a c*nt on his show. Sure he might have said the word, but it never would have aired because ABC would have bleeped it out. Of course he’s been gone from ABC for quite some time now, precisely because he behaved then as Limbaugh is behaving now (or was until yesterday, when his own sponsors were fleeing in droves). Maher himself all but admitted as much the other day, when he attempted to distinguish his remark from Limbaugh’s by noting that Limbaugh has sponsors to answer to and he doesn’t. He almost sounded proud of that, as if losing a national prime time television show everyone talked about in favor of an obscure HBO show no one watches (and hardly anyone even talks about unless he drops a c-bomb) were some kind of accomplishment. I guess Maher figured his viewers have long since forgotten why he no longer has sponsors. Perhaps they have, but I haven’t.

    You also need to lighten up, ST. I never said most conservatives are raging hypocrites on this issue. I said some are. Too many, IMO, and not necessarily fewer than exist on the other side. For all the conservatives so eager to defend their own worst elements for smearing a young woman whose sole offense was to publicly express a political view with when they disagree, I don’t know a single liberal who defends Bill Maher’s comment about Sarah Palin. Do you? I suppose his fan does.

  26. ST says:

    *I* need to lighten up?? YOU need to look in a mirror and say that, X. I’m not the one berating everyone who disagrees with me as more or less having an an inferior opinion or being a “hypocrite.” Like I said, we can’t all be as perfect as you think you are.

  27. Sandra Partridge says:

    The Grandiosity Club
    I’m convinced that there is a correlation between conservative women and narcissism. Because conservative women believe themselves to be superior, they think they can exploit the phone call President Obama made to Sandra Fluke to fulfill their high opinion of themselves. What they have inadvertently revealed is their need for admiration and their lack of empathy.

  28. James says:

    Ms. Fluke’s testimony was not about her sexual activity, it was about fair coverage of health insurance for women. Limbaugh lied about this on air for three days, then again in his “apology.” You have internet access, read her testimony for yourselves.

    Frankly, the country would be better off with informed conservatives, rather than an ignorant mob that simply repeats what a shock jock says on the radio.

  29. Carlos says:

    In the setting she testified in, you are correct, James – it was “about fair coverage of health insurance for women.”

    Unfortunately, that was not what the real House hearings were about, and fortunately for her Ms. Pelosy defined what is “fair” in her pseudo-hearing.

    The real hearings were about whether or not the government has the right to remove First Amendment protection from religion-sponsored enterprises. Nothing more, nothing less. The insurance coverage is a red herring designed to move national discussion to whether the president is to blame for the economic catastrophe he has extended unreasonably. He is desperate to avoid confronting voters with his record of the last three years, and will use any excuse his team can come up with to keep the voters from coming to terms with that sad and sorry legacy.

  30. Marshall Art says:

    Frankly, for any woman to “testify” about the cost of contraceptives for students like themselves is to imply that they are likewise burdened. She speaks for those who are so burdened and takes their place in doing so. Rush suggested such people are sluts by referring to this person as one, this person who speaks on behalf of other students burdened by the costs of contraceptives.

    And for the person trying to distinguish between Maher and Limbaugh, Rush is using an appropriate term for an unmarried woman who engages in sexual relations. The number of partners is not necessarily the only factor in the use of the term, even if technically and by definition it is more accurate. For example, to most mothers I’ve known when growing up, ANY girl who had sex before marriage was a slut, especially when caught having sex with their sons. So, in common usage, the term would apply to Fluke if she counts herself among those so burdened by the cost of contraceptives. I must admit, I do not know for certain that she did or does count herself among them. But by taking on the role of speaking on their behalf, the inference is logical and justified.

    As an aside, I believe she stated that it was $3000 over a three year period as a law student, to which I say “so what?”. It’s still not something that should be covered on ANY insurance policy.

  31. Zachriel says:

    Marshall Art: Rush is using an appropriate term for an unmarried woman who engages in sexual relations.

    Turns out that married women also go to college. Strange, but true.

  32. Carlos says:

    It also turns out a married female college student can have sex with other students (plural), too. Been doing it for at least decades, in fact.

    How do I know? Been there, done that, although I’m not proud of the fact. Just pointing it out. And that was before the great love-in, too!

    And this is still nothing more than a distraction from the real question, which is, how does our glorious leader and his chief chump at HHS figure their mandate to church-sponsored social service organizations is constitutional? One of the requirements for both those positions (and AG) should be the ability to read, especially read the Constitution.

  33. Zachriel says:

    Carlos: And this is still nothing more than a distraction from the real question, which is, how does our glorious leader and his chief chump at HHS figure their mandate to church-sponsored social service organizations is constitutional?

    When you enter the marketplace, you have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. Even if your religion says that men and women shouldn’t associate, once you open your doors to the public, then you have to serve everyone.

    In this case, they are not only serving the public, but hiring people of other faiths, and taking public monies. You may disagree with the mandate, but it is a secular mandate with a secular purpose, and therefore constitutional.

  34. Lorica says:

    Zach then let those people go work in the secular world. It is not constitutional in anyway, the Constitution clearly states that the Gov shall make no law. This is an interputation of a law that abriges the right of a religion to follow it’s own mandates freely. Infact your argument is for the individual, the 1st amendment Gov / Church seperation clause is pretty silent regarding that. If you can show me where it says that the Church shall provide I would be shocked.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
    free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
    the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of

    Let’s face it this is a back door way to start controlling these church schools and hospitals. Pretty soon the Gov is going to mandate that Church teachings won’t be able to be taught in church run schools. Then what??? No Churches whatsoever?? Ahhh to dream the impossible dream of the left. – Lorica

  35. Zachriel says:

    Lorica: This is an interputation of a law that abriges the right of a religion to follow it’s own mandates freely.

    Under that standard, no law can withstand someone saying it’s their religion. It’s against their religion to pay taxes. It’s against their religion to drive slow. It’s against their religion to serve blacks at their store. It’s against their religion to provide comprehensive health care that includes contraception. As long as the law is neutral and generally applicable, then it’s Constitutional (see Employment Division v. Smith).

    Lorica: Pretty soon the Gov is going to mandate that Church teachings won’t be able to be taught in church run schools.

    Church schools, those that purport to satisfy the requirements of a public education, must cover the subjects required by those requirements. However, churches can have separate classes for religious instruction.

  36. Lorica says:

    LOL But that is what the 1st amendment says. Thus the phrase “Free exercise threeof”. Also, your examples are a tad overblown.

    As far as this law, it is neither neutral or generally applicable. To be neutral it must cover both sexes, which this does not. To be generally applicable, it must be able to be applied, to men as well as women, which again it does not.

    And since this is all part of the foolishness of the national healthcare law, which has been declared unconstitional anything you say is rather moot as it all goes away when SCOTUS makes it’s decision. – Lorica

  37. Zachriel says:

    Lorica: Also, your examples are a tad overblown.

    They come from Scalia’s majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. Religious objections have been raised against compulsory military service, payment of taxes, minimum wage, health and safety, child neglect, animal cruelty, vaccination, drug, environmental protection, provision for equality of opportunity for the races, and even traffic laws.

  38. Zachriel says:

    Scalia explains:

    ” ‘Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.’

    “Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’ “

  39. Bob says:

    I just had an epiphany about this subject!:) It’s so obvious I guess I knew it but not iso concisely. It is perfectly OK to speak all kinds of vulgar slander about prominent women as long as it is FICTITIOUS!!(at least if they are conservative) but WOE to any talker who dares to speak in any slightly uncouth manner about any liberal person if it is TRUTH!! That is it is OK to lie but do not dare speak truth.