Sandra Fluke: Slurs Won’t Silence Women

As the right wing continues psychotically lying about her
Politics • Views: 28,281

I continue to be amazed and appalled at the right wing’s ongoing vicious attacks on law student Sandra Fluke, who had the audacity to testify before Congress while female.

For one example out of many, here’s Ryan Dobson, son of religious right bigwig James Dobson, with yet another disgusting sexist attack: Ryan Dobson on ‘Family Talk’ Assails Sandra Fluke for ‘Sleeping Around’.

Dobson: President Obama calls [Sandra Fluke] and says ‘I called you because of my own daughters, your parents must be proud.’ Really? Seriously? So Obama, when your daughter is a third year student at a college who sleeps around enough to where she’s struggling financially because she can’t afford contraception, that’s going to make you proud of your daughter? I cannot imagine a father in this country or anywhere that wakes up in the morning and is like, ‘I’m so glad my daughter sleeps around; it just makes me so proud that my daughter is sleeping around and spending money on contraception.’

At this point, none of these people can use the excuse of ignorance any more; they know that Ms Fluke did not say one word in her testimony about her sex life. They’re simply lying about this, and the lying is almost universal on the right — evidence of serious psychosexual problems, erupting out into the public seemingly beyond their control. I’ve never seen anything like it.

Meanwhile, Sandra Fluke has an opinion column today at CNN, showing the mental midgets of the right wing media how to behave with class even while they’re savagely attacking her in the most personal terms: Sandra Fluke: Slurs Won’t Silence Women.

By now, many have heard the stories I wanted to share thanks to the congressional leaders and members of the media who have supported me and millions of women in speaking out.

Because we spoke so loudly, opponents of reproductive health access demonized and smeared me and others on the public airwaves. These smears are obvious attempts to distract from meaningful policy discussions and to silence women’s voices regarding their own health care.

These attempts to silence women and the men who support them have clearly failed. I know this because I have received so many messages of support from across the country — women and men speaking out because they agree that contraception needs to be treated as a basic health care service.

Who are these supporters?

They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who need contraception to prevent cysts from growing on their ovaries, which if unaddressed can lead to infertility and deadly ovarian cancer. They are sexual assault victims, who need contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

They are Catholic women, who see no conflict between their social justice -based faith and family planning. They are new moms, whose doctors fear that another pregnancy too soon could jeopardize the mother’s health and the potential child’s health too. They are mothers and grandmothers who remember all too well what it was like to be called names decades ago, when they were fighting for a job, for health care benefits, for equality.

They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who know that without access to contraception, the women they care about can face unfair obstacles to participating in public life. And yes, they are young women of all income levels, races, classes and ethnicities who need access to contraception to control their reproduction, pursue their education and career goals and prevent unintended pregnancy. And they will not be silenced.

Jump to bottom

110 comments
1 HappyWarrior  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:23:27am

More with the lying about Fluke with young Dobson. And I see Ryan Dobson is an old chip off the block. I am glad she's continuing to speak out because this is an important issue.

2 Obdicut  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:24:04am

Fluke is really amazingly classy about this. Which is making some people attack her for being 'too prepared'.

3 HappyWarrior  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:25:04am

re: #2 Obdicut

Fluke is really amazingly classy about this. Which is making some people attack her for being 'too prepared'.

Yeah she's being far more diplomatic than I would be. She's tough. Much more than the cowards calling her a slut.

4 Targetpractice  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:27:09am

See, see, she's an activist! A publicity whore! She's doing all this to get attention! No tax dollars for sluts!

5 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:27:30am

A top notch response.

What's even more troubling than the morally bankrupt rhetoric coming from Republicans on this issue is that they obviously believe that this kind of rhetoric will prove politically expedient.

How sad is it that they believe that demeaning someone by making uninformed and slanderous comments about her sex life will appeal to voters?

6 Interesting Times  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:30:14am

I paged this earlier, focusing mainly on the financial aspects of her article. Particularly this bit:

Many women cannot medically use the least expensive types of contraception.

Not that that's going to shut up the "durr hurr, let them go to Walmart!" types 9_9

7 wrenchwench  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:30:52am

Thanks, wingnuts, for helping to create and strengthen a new hero for a new generation.

8 HappyWarrior  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:31:01am

What annoys me is even some people I know who are upset about the Limbaugh comments continue to spread the bs that she(Fluke) wants us to subsidize her sex life and continue to ignore that she was talking about health issues as a large percentage of women who use contraception use it for medical reasons.

9 Targetpractice  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:31:43am

re: #6 Interesting Times

I paged this earlier, focusing mainly on the financial aspects of her article. Particularly this bit:

Not that that's going to shut up the "durr hurr, let them go to Walmart!" types 9_9

Remember that most of those types are the kind that thing that the only major form of contraception is condoms.

10 Killgore Trout  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:33:20am

She continues to impress me. Classy response using substance and she stayed on issue.

11 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:33:26am

A serious question. I've been traveling and largely out of the loop on this lame-ass "issue."

I've heard "conservatives" make the argument that this is somehow about the issue of taxpayers being forced to subsidize women's ability to have sex. What is the logic of that argument? How is requiring insurance agencies to cover contraception turned into taxpayers subsidizing "so much sex" as per Limbaugh? Is the argument that their insurance rates will go up if contraception is covered?

Could anyone actually be so short-sighted as to argue that there shouldn't be any regulations on what insurance companies should and/or should not be required to cover - because that would keep their rates down? Do they not realize that without regulations, insurance companies could simply deny coverage for anything as they wish in a purely arbitrary basis - and there would be no form of recourse?

12 Targetpractice  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:35:17am

re: #11 Talking Point Detective

A serious question. I've been traveling and largely out of the loop on this lame-ass "issue."

I've heard "conservatives" make the argument that this is somehow about the issue of taxpayers being forced to subsidize women's ability to have sex. What is the logic of that argument? How is requiring insurance agencies to cover contraception turned into taxpayers subsidizing "so much sex" as per Limbaugh? Is the argument that their insurance rates will go up if contraception is covered?

Could anyone actually be so short-sighted as to argue that there shouldn't be any regulations on what insurance companies should and/or should not be required to cover - because that would keep their rates down? Do they not realize that without regulations, insurance companies could simply deny coverage for anything as they wish in a purely arbitrary basis - and there would be no form of recourse?

There is no logic to the argument, it's the bullshit that Rush got them convinced was the substance of her testimony. Even women who got pissed off at his use of "slut" and "prostitute" still believe that she was up there to demand the government cover contraception because it costs too much for her to have sex.

13 allegro  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:36:28am

re: #11 Talking Point Detective

A serious question. I've been traveling and largely out of the loop on this lame-ass "issue."

I've heard "conservatives" make the argument that this is somehow about the issue of taxpayers being forced to subsidize women's ability to have sex. What is the logic of that argument? How is requiring insurance agencies to cover contraception turned into taxpayers subsidizing "so much sex" as per Limbaugh? Is the argument that their insurance rates will go up if contraception is covered?

Could anyone actually be so short-sighted as to argue that there shouldn't be any regulations on what insurance companies should and/or should not be required to cover - because that would keep their rates down? Do they not realize that without regulations, insurance companies could simply deny coverage for anything as they wish in a purely arbitrary basis - and there would be no form of recourse?

Because OMG TAXES are what get their base of ignorant followers riled up. It's telling them that they are paying for the fun of the unwashed undeserved. The fact that it's a lie is incidental and entirely unimportant.

14 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:36:53am

YOU GO SANDRA!

15 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:37:13am

This is why I really hate personal attacks in politics. The conversation was about medical care and the need some women have for it.

Now it's about Rush and Sandra Fluke.

Earlier we were talking about attacks on Trig Palin. The conversation should have been about his mother's qualifications for vice president, and instead we were discussing the details proving that he was his mother's child, which were, on the national level, completely irrelevant.

16 Obdicut  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:37:18am

re: #11 Talking Point Detective

There's even less logic than that: Insurance companies cover childbirth-- and STDs. So, one way or another, they'll be covering the effects of your sex life. Contraception is the cheaper way to go about it-- which is why you haven't heard the insurance companies protesting this one at all.

17 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:38:46am

re: #11 Talking Point Detective

It's all smoke and mirrors used to obfuscate the issue and push a socon agenda.

18 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:38:55am

re: #12 Targetpractice

There is no logic to the argument, it's the bullshit that Rush got them convinced was the substance of her testimony. Even women who got pissed off at his use of "slut" and "prostitute" still believe that she was up there to demand the government cover contraception because it costs too much for her to have sex.

That applies to some, but to an awful lot of people (like the 98% of Catholic women who use birth control against their chruch's policy), they see birth control as a basic personal and individual right.

And the damage that Rush and all the other supporters of these bills has done to the GOP brand is most likely going to cost the election, no matter what happens with the economy or with gas prices by November.

19 Interesting Times  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:39:08am

re: #7 wrenchwench

Thanks, wingnuts, for helping to create and strengthen a new hero for a new generation.

When I first saw her picture, I got an overwhelming sense of deja vu, like she was reminding me of someone I'd seen before. I think I figured it out:

Sandra Fluke

Nellie McClung, Canadian feminist who fought for women's suffrage and their right to be considered "persons".

20 wrenchwench  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:40:22am

re: #19 Interesting Times

When I first saw her picture, I got a strong sense of deja vu, like she was reminding me of someone. I think I figured it out:

Sandra Fluke

Nellie McClung, Canadian feminist who fought for women's suffrage and their right to be considered "persons".

Wow, that is striking.

21 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:40:37am

re: #12 Targetpractice

There is no logic to the argument, it's the bullshit that Rush got them convinced was the substance of her testimony. Even women who got pissed off at his use of "slut" and "prostitute" still believe that she was up there to demand the government cover contraception because it costs too much for her to have sex.

Just to clarify - her testimony was about what private companies should be required to cover. This has nothing to do with taxpayer funding. So, this was just shoe-horned into an anti-government meme, without any basis? Not that I'm surprised - I'd just like to understand what their argument actually is.

22 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:41:25am

re: #16 Obdicut

There's even less logic than that: Insurance companies cover childbirth-

But only until the government mandates that they should no longer, isn't that right, Ms Bachmann? BIRTH PANELS !!!!

And by logical extension, if the government should not subsidize your sex life, why should it subsidize the consequences.

And if the government is paying for your childbirth WE WANT YOU TO POST THE VIDEOS LIVE ON THE INTERNET!!!

23 Killgore Trout  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:42:30am

re: #15 To hold my temper, most of the time.

This is why I really hate personal attacks in politics. The conversation was about medical care and the need some women have for it.

Now it's about Rush and Sandra Fluke.

Earlier we were talking about attacks on Trig Palin. The conversation should have been about his mother's qualifications for vice president, and instead we were discussing the details proving that he was his mother's child, which were, on the national level, completely irrelevant.

Very much agreed. Unfortunately the conversation almost instantly got derailed into Rush's advertiser list, FCC or criminal prosecutions, free speech and intolerance, etc. This is why American politics is dysfunctional.

24 Targetpractice  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:42:58am

re: #21 Talking Point Detective

Just to clarify - her testimony was about what private companies should be required to cover. This has nothing to do with taxpayer funding. So, this was just shoe-horned into an anti-government meme, without any basis? Not that I'm surprised - I'd just like to understand what their argument actually is.

It was an anti-tax meme, argued as a "We'll have to pick up the tab with higher premiums!" That's been their argument since Obama agreed to the compromise, arguing that higher premiums will be the same as paying for "free" contraception.

25 Bulworth  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:43:17am
Just to clarify - her testimony was about what private companies should be required to cover. This has nothing to do with taxpayer funding.

But, but, religious liberty! But, hey, we have some invasive ultrasounds we're going to make you take. Less government!

26 Targetpractice  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:43:45am

re: #22 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

But only until the government mandates that they should no longer, isn't that right, Ms Bachmann? BIRTH PANELS !!!

And by logical extension, if the government should not subsidize your sex life, why should it subsidize the consequences.

And if the government is paying for your childbirth WE WANT YOU TO POST THE VIDEOS LIVE ON THE INTERNET!!!

No thanks, I just ate.

/

27 jaunte  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:43:59am

Did any of the right wingers complaining about the cost of women's healthcare complain about keeping the Iraq war 'off the books' until 2010?

28 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:44:11am

We are coming to see a new definition of a "silent majority" here: rational people tend to be quiet on this issue because they do not understand why contraception should be the subject at all in 2012.

The only ones who are making a fuss over it are the ones who want to take us back to the days before the Civil War...

29 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:44:24am

Right wing media don't care any more about facts, or making a real argument. The sole purpose is to keep the RW base enraged. Anything goes, including blatant, easily refuted lies. They know their intended audience will never call them on it.

30 Obdicut  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:44:44am

re: #23 Killgore Trout

She's also speaking about intolerance, so that's not exactly a derailment, no.

And I agree that people who were talking about this in terms of Rush's free speech were fucking idiots, but hey, what can you do about people who can't distinguish between a society rejecting speech as unacceptable and the government making it illegal? They just don't get it, and when pressed on it, usually fail to understand.

31 HappyWarrior  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:45:11am

re: #27 jaunte

Did any of the right wingers complaining about the cost of women's healthcare complain about keeping the Iraq war 'off the books' until 2010?

They think the defense budget is paid for by magical leprechauns. Drill laddie drill!

32 jaunte  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:45:56am

re: #31 HappyWarrior

"Fiscalpersnalresponsibilitee"

33 Targetpractice  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:46:03am

re: #29 Charles Johnson

Right wing media don't care any more about facts, or making a real argument. The sole purpose is to keep the RW base enraged. Anything goes, including blatant, easily refuted lies. They know their intended audience will never call them on it.

Not only won't call them on it, but will spread the lies via word of mouth.

"Hey, did you hear about that college student, the one that wants folks to pay for her contraception? $3000 in a year! How many condoms you think that is?"

34 Bulworth  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:46:56am
Attacking me and women who use contraception by calling us prostitutes and worse cannot silence us.

#Winning

You're very mean spirited refusal to be silenced is an attack on my religious freedom!!

35 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:47:54am

re: #23 Killgore Trout

Very much agreed. Unfortunately the conversation almost instantly got derailed into Rush's advertiser list, FCC or criminal prosecutions, free speech and intolerance, etc. This is why American politics is dysfunctional.

Yes, in a large part because of the right-wing noise machine, I agree with you. Which is why it's good to boycott Rush, who derailed the conversation.

36 HappyWarrior  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:48:26am

re: #32 jaunte

"Fiscalpersnalresponsibilitee"

They're so fiscally responsible except they're not fiscally responsible. Conservatism stopped being about fiscal responsibility the minute tax cuts took precedence over balancing the budget in conservative ideology.

37 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:49:22am

re: #15 To hold my temper, most of the time.

Earlier we were talking about attacks on Trig Palin. The conversation should have been about his mother's qualifications for vice president, and instead we were discussing the details proving that he was his mother's child, which were, on the national level, completely irrelevant.

My argument was simply one of qualification: she was governor of a state with a population equal to that of Louisville, KY or Phoenix, AZ. And although it is large in size, almost 3/4 of Alaska is Federal or tribal land.

But the argument - one that still lives on in the Tea Party end of the GOP - is that education and qualification are for elitists, all that matters is ideology and character.

38 Bulworth  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:50:03am

I know it's all just lies from the librul media, but here's another interesting consideration I wish the RWNJ would address:

Floozy. Strumpet. Slut.

When attacking a woman by questioning her sexual mores, there’s a smorgasbord of slurs, and you can take your rancid pick. Help me out here: where are the comparable nouns for men? What’s a male slut?

A role model, in some cases. In others, a presidential candidate.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

39 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:50:29am

re: #24 Targetpractice

It was an anti-tax meme, argued as a "We'll have to pick up the tab with higher premiums!" That's been their argument since Obama agreed to the compromise, arguing that higher premiums will be the same as paying for "free" contraception.

Thanks. So that's the argument. Our premiums will increase as the result of women having sex (the fact they'd be having sex with men is I guess irrelevant?). And by that logic, this becomes an example of government overreach.

Or, in other words, as others have said, they start out with the political strategy that everything has to be about government overreach and they work their way backwards to make everything proof of government overreach. Has there been any breaking of ranks on the underlying argument (I've heard that some conservatives have criticized Limbaugh on the rhetoric)? Any examples of Republicans pushing back that not requiring coverage for contraception would prove counterproductive?

40 Killgore Trout  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:50:45am

re: #35 Lenin's Mummy

Yes, in a large part because of the right-wing noise machine, I agree with you. Which is why it's good to boycott Rush, who derailed the conversation.

I don't think so. The Wingnuts and Rush would love this to become a free speech issue because it's a case they can win. If the debate stayed on the topic of reproductive health issues they'd probably lose pretty badly.

41 Lidane  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:51:39am

re: #23 Killgore Trout

Very much agreed. Unfortunately the conversation almost instantly got derailed into Rush's advertiser list, FCC or criminal prosecutions, free speech and intolerance, etc. This is why American politics is dysfunctional.

No, American politics are dysfunctional because we've allowed people like Rush Limbaugh and networks like Faux News to shape the conversation instead of arguing the merits of the case.

We have a shitty excuse for a media that is more concerned with $$$ than they are with actually telling the truth. We've allowed them to dumb us down and make us a less informed electorate because somewhere along the way, we decided that soundbites and talking points were acceptable instead of actual, substantive discussion.

42 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:52:21am

re: #40 Killgore Trout

I don't think so. The Wingnuts and Rush would love this to become a free speech issue because it's a case they can win. If the debate stayed on the topic of reproductive health issues they'd probably lose pretty badly.

Exactly. Which is why they derailed it, as they always do. Which is why without shattering the rw noise machine you won't get any progress with that restoring of functionality.

43 jaunte  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:52:27am

re: #38 Bulworth

Interesting:

In a spirited essay on The Daily Beast this past weekend, the novelist Paul Theroux joined many commentators in alleging liberal hypocrisy, of which there has indeed been some.

And he said that provocative language is an essential part of public dialogue, arguing that you can’t recoil from its deployment against Fluke unless you want to forfeit its use elsewhere.

“You have to give Limbaugh a pass,” he maintained, in order to preserve the right to call Newt Gingrich and Eric Cantor “pimps for Israel, and Rick Santorum a mental midget.”

It’s an interesting point, but it ignores the precise type of language Limbaugh turned to and assumes an even playing field where one doesn’t exist.

While both men and women are called idiots and puppets and frauds, only women are attacked in terms of suspected (or flat-out hallucinated) licentiousness. And only for women is there such a brimming, insidious thesaurus of accordant pejoratives.

44 Lidane  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:52:57am

re: #40 Killgore Trout

I don't think so. The Wingnuts and Rush would love this to become a free speech issue because it's a case they can win. If the debate stayed on the topic of reproductive health issues they'd probably lose pretty badly.

They're losing in both directions, because this isn't a free speech issue. The government isn't censoring Rush. Advertisers have chosen to disassociate themselves from his show and his ignorance.

45 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:53:12am

I had pretty much zero respect for Andrew Breitbart, but the goons who've taken his place make him look like a genius.

46 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:53:35am

Matt Barber Lies His Ass Off

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel joins the chorus of dishonesty and misogyny aimed at Sandra Fluke, performing virtual fellatio on Rush Limbaugh and offering the standard tu quoque that is always thrown out by those with nothing else to say. Let’s count the stupidity and the lies one by one. First, a meaningless talking point:

47 HappyWarrior  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:53:44am

re: #37 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

My argument was simply one of qualification: she was governor of a state with a population equal to that of Louisville, KY or Phoenix, AZ. And although it is large in size, almost 3/4 of Alaska is Federal or tribal land.

But the argument - one that still lives on in the Tea Party end of the GOP - is that education and qualification are for elitists, all that matters is ideology and character.

Mine too. The county I grew up in was bigger than population than Alaska and the town I grew up in larger than Wasila. Now while I liked both the county executive and mayor of both, I wouldn't want them to be VP. The county exec is now in Congress, nice guy. Plus I think she hadn't showed that she understood national politics and international relations that well. She just wasn't informed. The attacks on her kids were wrong as were the ones on her for "covering up" the "truth" about Trig's birth but that didn't mean the real criticisms of her were right. And I still think she's a nasty person. I haven't forgotten her going to my state, a state she knew little about and telling voters how glad she was to be in "Real Virginia", thankfully Virginia rejected McCain-Palin and I expect them to reject the Republicans again.

48 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:54:49am

re: #44 Lidane

They're losing in both directions, because this isn't a free speech issue. The government isn't censoring Rush. Advertisers have chosen to disassociate themselves from his show and his ignorance.

Once again, we see how the American people are sorely deficient in basic education: basic civics.

Free speech is not the same as paid or sponsored speech. Networks and sponsors are free to choose who they want to finance.

49 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:55:01am

re: #45 Charles Johnson

Yeah, he didn't have class or conscience, but he had great marketing skills. These folks don't even have that.

50 Targetpractice  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:55:52am

re: #39 Talking Point Detective

Thanks. So that's the argument. Our premiums will increase as the result of women having sex (the fact they'd be having sex with men is I guess irrelevant?). And by that logic, this becomes an example of government overreach.

Or, in other words, as others have said, they start out with the political strategy that everything has to be about government overreach and they work their way backwards to make everything proof of government overreach. Has there been any breaking of ranks on the underlying argument (I've heard that some conservatives have criticized Limbaugh on the rhetoric)? Any examples of Republicans pushing back that not requiring coverage for contraception would prove counterproductive?

Their argument's basically a copy over of their one against Planned Parenthood, namely the "fungible dollars" one that says if I'm paying higher premiums now, then that's the same as me paying for a woman's "free contraception." Doesn't matter if the premiums were gonna go up anyway, or that contraception being "free" saves money down the line, they're higher so I'm "paying" for that contraception.

51 Kragar  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:57:14am

FRC Laments 40 Year Old SCOTUS Decision Sanctioning 'Non-Procreative Sexual Intimacy'

In 1972, the Supreme Court decided Eisenstadt v. Baird, striking down a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people.

Next week, the Family Research Council will host a discussion explaining how this decision, which "sanctioned unmarried non-procreative sexual intimacy," set the stage for the Obama Administration's contraception mandate and marriage equality:

52 Lidane  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:57:41am

re: #48 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

Once again, we see how the American people are sorely deficient in basic education: basic civics.

Free speech is not the same as paid or sponsored speech. Networks and sponsor are free to choose who they want to finance.

Seriously. How hard is it to read the First Amendment?

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

It's right there in plain English. The First Amendment is about government not censoring free speech. It doesn't say a damned thing about talk show hosts being entitled to advertising dollars if a company feels it's not in their interest to be associated with them.

53 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:57:49am

re: #50 Targetpractice

Their argument's basically a copy over of their one against Planned Parenthood, namely the "fungible dollars" one that says if I'm paying higher premiums now, then that's the same as me paying for a woman's "free contraception." Doesn't matter if the premiums were gonna go up anyway, or that contraception being "free" saves money down the line, they're higher so I'm "paying" for that contraception.

There is the entire argument that universal health care will promote more preventive medicine and actually lower overall costs. But that is cast to the winds in the dame of "government interference in our private choices".

54 HappyWarrior  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:57:57am

Yeah I don't see how they can twist this into a free issue. No one sane is saying Limbaugh should be jailed or fined. But people have lost their radio shows for far less than he has. And a radio show isn't a right and it's the advertisers right to back away from him if he's become so toxic that they can't associate their names with him. And the more people like young Dobson call her a slut or insinuate it, the more the advertisers feel vindicated by their decision. Limbaugh's made a career of saying stupid shit but this appears to be what has set many off. Sandra Fluke could have been my sister, girlfriend, etc, and I think that's why there's been such big backlash to Rush here.

55 Bulworth  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:58:30am

re: #51 Kragar
They say "marriage equality" like it's a bad thing.

56 Lidane  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:58:33am

re: #51 Kragar

FRC Laments 40 Year Old SCOTUS Decision Sanctioning 'Non-Procreative Sexual Intimacy'

In other words, their problem is single people having sex lives.

57 Kragar  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:58:44am

Its is a well known fact that prior to 1972, only married couple ever had sex.

58 HappyWarrior  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:59:17am

re: #56 Lidane

In other words, their problem is people having sex lives.

Fixed but yeah.

59 Targetpractice  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:59:39am

re: #53 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

There is the entire argument that universal health care will promote more preventive medicine and actually lower overall costs. But that is cast to the winds in the dame of "government interference in our private choices".

Yep, public safety and the common good must heed to my desire to avoid the costs of preventative care today, because if they force me to get a check-up today, they could take that donut or cigarette away from me tomorrow!

60 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 11:59:41am

re: #56 Lidane

In other words, their problem is single people having sex lives.

Outside of marriage, yes.

61 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:00:28pm

re: #40 Killgore Trout

I don't think so. The Wingnuts and Rush would love this to become a free speech issue because it's a case they can win. If the debate stayed on the topic of reproductive health issues they'd probably lose pretty badly.

Of course you've been right there helping the Rush and the wingnuts by trying to make the issue about how impoverished our culture's dialog becomes when the average person stands up and tells Rush's advertisers that continued association carries consequences.

By making this false equivalence in conflating boycotts with an attack on "free speech," you've demonstrated that the difference between public and private action is operationally irrelevant to you.

62 Lidane  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:00:30pm

re: #57 Kragar

Its is a well known fact that prior to 1972, only married couple ever had sex.

And that only married people had any use for contraception, which could only be bought if a woman had permission from her husband first.

63 jaunte  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:00:35pm

re: #56 Lidane

In other words, their problem is single people having sex lives.

Only single women, it's ok for men.

64 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:02:09pm

re: #63 jaunte

Only single women, it's ok for men.

If he is having sex with a woman who is already a slut, then fine - but he should not lead any nice girls astray, that is sinful...

65 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:02:28pm
66 wrenchwench  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:03:22pm

re: #63 jaunte

Only single women, it's ok for men.

Unless they're gay.

67 Eventual Carrion  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:03:40pm

re: #23 Killgore Trout

Very much agreed. Unfortunately the conversation almost instantly got derailed into Rush's advertiser list, FCC or criminal prosecutions, free speech and intolerance, etc. This is why American politics is dysfunctional.

Rush started his conversation OFF derailed and twisted for his argument. The other things were in response to his twisting derailment. They weren't the derailment, they were the response TO the derailment.

68 HappyWarrior  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:03:42pm

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
I just finished reading The Brethren by the way a couple weeks ago. Fascinating look at the court in the Nixon years.

69 Kragar  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:04:00pm

Mrs. Blackitt: Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?
Harry Blackitt: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.
Mrs. Blackitt: But it's the same with us, Harry.
Harry Blackitt: What do you mean?
Mrs. Blackitt: Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice.

70 jaunte  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:04:05pm

re: #65 Charles Johnson

(Goons who broke their idol's website, and still haven't fixed it).

71 Ming  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:04:58pm

I admire Sandra Fluke for refusing to be intimidated.

This reminds me of when Andrew Breitbart went after Shirley Sherrod. Ms. Sherrod, like Ms. Fluke, was just an "ordinary" American. Breitbart persisted in his attacks, even after he was informed that he had taken Ms. Sherrod's remarks out of context.

It's unfortunate when an "ordinary" American gets dragged into politics, but I guess that's the whole point: intimidation. Silencing. When she says she won't be silenced, Sandra Fluke is standing up for the right of all of us to participate in our democracy without fear.

72 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:05:02pm

re: #67 RayFerd

Rush started his conversation OFF derailed and twisted for his argument. The other things were in response to his twisting derailment. They weren't the derailment, they were the response TO the derailment.

Nonono, Rush was simply enriching the nation with his free speech.//

73 Lidane  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:05:03pm

re: #66 wrenchwench

Unless they're gay.

Unless those gay men are rentboys, or have wide stances, or whatever.

74 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:05:09pm

re: #70 jaunte

(Goons who broke their idol's website, and still haven't fixed it).

yep, they much be good at spellin' and cipherin'...

75 Bulworth  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:07:21pm

re: #63 jaunte

Only single women, it's ok for men.

It's not really OK for men either. But it's the woman's fault. And the librul media's. And filthy Hollywood's. And Obama's. //

76 jaunte  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:09:06pm

re: #75 Bulworth

"Did you see what she was wearing?"

77 Bulworth  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:09:59pm

re: #76 jaunte

"Did you see what she was wearing?"

Yes, she brought it on herself or led the man astray. /

78 wrenchwench  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:11:37pm

re: #65 Charles Johnson

From Tucson, Arizona:

GOP Senate candidate misspells Tucson in TV ad

[...]

Early in the ad, a scrapbook appears on the screen as Cardon talks about growing up in a family business and hard work being the bedrock. In one picture, it says, “Tuscon, 1959,” with the name of Arizona’s second largest city spelled wrong.

Cardon is a fifth-generation Arizonan.

[...]

79 Eventual Carrion  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:11:50pm

re: #50 Targetpractice

Their argument's basically a copy over of their one against Planned Parenthood, namely the "fungible dollars" one that says if I'm paying higher premiums now, then that's the same as me paying for a woman's "free contraception." Doesn't matter if the premiums were gonna go up anyway, or that contraception being "free" saves money down the line, they're higher so I'm "paying" for that contraception.

When in truth they are paying for all the cancer and other ailments that their deregulation of polluters have foisted on the populous and in turn need paid for by insurance premiums.

80 wrenchwench  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:14:04pm

re: #71 Ming

I admire Sandra Fluke for refusing to be intimidated.

This reminds me of when Andrew Breitbart went after Shirley Sherrod. Ms. Sherrod, like Ms. Fluke, was just an "ordinary" American. Breitbart persisted in his attacks, even after he was informed that he had taken Ms. Sherrod's remarks out of context.

It's unfortunate when an "ordinary" American gets dragged into politics, but I guess that's the whole point: intimidation. Silencing. When she says she won't be silenced, Sandra Fluke is standing up for the right of all of us to participate in our democracy without fear.

That bolded part is a misrepresentation, I think. Breitbart deliberately took her comments out of context himself, hoping to get away with a big, dirty rotten smear.

81 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:14:12pm

re: #78 wrenchwench

From Tucson, Arizona:

education is for elitists, it's character and ideology that counts...

82 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:15:06pm

re: #15 To hold my temper, most of the time.

This is why I really hate personal attacks in politics. The conversation was about medical care and the need some women have for it.

Now it's about Rush and Sandra Fluke.

Earlier we were talking about attacks on Trig Palin. The conversation should have been about his mother's qualifications for vice president, and instead we were discussing the details proving that he was his mother's child, which were, on the national level, completely irrelevant.

Even before it was all about Sandra and Rush it wasn't exactly a serious debate about the issue of contraception and how it relates to public health. Instead it was being spun as a religious rights issue which is, IMO, just a different distraction. Then of course Rush drooled on his microphone and it went further downhill from there...

83 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:17:05pm

re: #82 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter

Even before it was all about Sandra and Rush it wasn't exactly a serious debate about the issue of contraception and how it relates to public health. Instead it was being spun as a religious rights issue which is, IMO, just a different distraction. Then of course Rush drooled on his microphone and it went further downhill from there...

which is almost a good thing: if the discussion had stayed fixed on the "freedom of religion" thing, the right could have gained a lot more mileage out of it.

as soon as it degenerated into name-calling, it became clear to almost everyone that it was all about slut-shaming.

84 Eventual Carrion  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:17:07pm

re: #72 Lenin's Mummy

Nonono, Rush was simply enriching the nation with his free speech.//

I know, like I enrich my toilet bowl every morning with a BM.

85 jaunte  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:17:45pm

The forbidden Doonesbury.
[Link: twitter.com...]

86 Bulworth  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:18:53pm

re: #81 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

education is for elitists, it's character and ideology that counts...

And by "character" we mean, "You believe in supply-side Jesus" and defend our spokesman, Rush, no matter what.

87 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:20:08pm

re: #80 wrenchwench

That bolded part is a misrepresentation, I think. Breitbart deliberately took her comments out of context himself, hoping to get away with a big, dirty rotten smear.

Absolutely. In fact, Breitbart himself admitted that the reason why he went after Sherrod was to retaliate against the NAACP, after they released a report on Tea Party racism.

88 Simply Sarah  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:27:16pm

re: #57 Kragar

Its is a well known fact that prior to 1972, only married couple ever had sex.

Except Griswold had already ruined that in 1965.

89 Kragar  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:33:18pm

Women are facing sexual McCarthyism

The “war on women” can be measured, in one sense, by the volume of demeaning and physically violating measures that not only force women to undergo procedures against their will, but force doctors to perform procedures that are medically unnecessary.

Virginia may have backed away from the invasive transvaginal ultrasound law, but requiring a standard ultrasound runs contrary to the guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Nine states now mandate this “overreach” of government into a very personal and private decision between a woman and her doctor.

Look, it’s obvious that abortion is the most sensitive of public policy issues. Women deeply understand the wrenching trade-offs they must make in weighing such a personal decision. So, in addition to legislatively forced physical procedures, it should come as no surprise that women are angered by patronizing bills mandating waiting periods or forced “reflection” on images or on text written by legislators — bills that assume women are empty-headed children.

So much for “trusting” the citizens. So much for Republicans as the party of small government.

90 wrenchwench  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:39:15pm

re: #85 jaunte

The forbidden Doonesbury.
[Link: twitter.com...]

Thanks for the eye exercises!

91 carlaschluge  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:41:01pm

47% of the country currently are racist. Last month, only 41% were racist.

[Link: www.scribd.com...]

92 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:41:09pm

re: #80 wrenchwench

That bolded part is a misrepresentation, I think. Breitbart deliberately took her comments out of context himself, hoping to get away with a big, dirty rotten smear.

I suspect that discovery in the court case would be partially aimed at determining who edited the video, Breitbart himself, a confederate, or that it had been supplied to him already in edited form.

Which still didn't excuse attacking without attempting to ascertain the truth and context of the video. But since the video fit the predetermined decision to attack, why be surprised that it was immediately used.

93 Bulworth  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:44:25pm

OT: DOW at 13,150. That's some major soshulism.

94 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:44:29pm

re: #91 carlaschluge

47% of the country currently are racist. Last month, only 41% were racist.

[Link: www.scribd.com...]

Yunno, it is entirely possible to be against Obama for his politics, personnel and policy decisions. I am open to any sort of discussion on those matters

But there still seems to be a large chunk of people who are against him because they think him a socilist, Muslim, Kenyan or dangerous radical.

Don't conflate the two. I am not at all willing to listen to any discussion of the latter points.

95 erik_t  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:50:43pm

re: #94 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

Yunno, it is entirely possible to be against Obama for his politics, personnel and policy decisions. I am open to any sort of discussion on those matters

But there still seems to be a large chunk of people who are against him because they think him a socilist, Muslim, Kenyan or dangerous radical.

Don't conflate the two. I am not at all willing to listen to any discussion of the latter points.

This month, 100% of carl(a)s have no ability or interest in differentiating between the two.

96 engineer cat  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:51:14pm

Fed sees economy slowly brightening

they've been watching too many detergent commercials

97 lawhawk  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:53:33pm

OT: It appears that the DJIA has broken through the 13k barrier decisively. Now at 13,158 with a few minutes before the closing bell. NASDAQ composite moved above 3,000 for first time in 11 years.

Good news that the Fed was maintaining its policies; JPM was increasing its dividend and stock buyback programs, along with Alcoa and GE scoring big gains.

98 Bulworth  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:54:32pm

re: #97 lawhawk

OT: It appears that the DJIA has broken through the 13k barrier decisively. Now at 13,158 with a few minutes before the closing bell. NASDAQ composite moved above 3,000 for first time in 11 years.

Good news that the Fed was maintaining its policies; JPM was increasing its dividend and stock buyback programs, along with Alcoa and GE scoring big gains.

More fake numbers!

99 carlaschluge  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:54:55pm

re: #93 Bulworth

Goldman says DOW will be at 1250 at year end. Anyone one to take any bets?

[Link: mobile.bloomberg.com...]

100 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:54:58pm

re: #96 engineer cat

Fed sees economy slowly brightening

they've been watching too many detergent commercials

the tide is high...

101 lawhawk  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:57:32pm

re: #99 carlaschluge

Goldman says DOW will be at 1250 at year end. Anyone one to take any bets?

[Link: mobile.bloomberg.com...]

Do you even read what you're writing/posting?

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index will end next year at 1,250 as a stagnating U.S. economy damps valuation increases for equities, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)’s David Kostin said.

An analyst at Goldman Sachs says the S&P 500 - NOT THE DJIA - would be at 1,250.

Current S&P 500 figure - 1,395. In other words, he's predicting under 10% correction (which isn't farfetched really considering the runup).

102 carlaschluge  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:57:38pm

re: #99 carlaschluge

Oops, my mistake. Goldman says S&P 500 will be at 1250. It's almost at 1400 right now.

103 carlaschluge  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:58:03pm

re: #101 lawhawk

My bad.

104 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:59:16pm

re: #99 carlaschluge

Goldman says DOW will be at 1250 at year end. Anyone one to take any bets?

[Link: mobile.bloomberg.com...]

You're so bad it's good. Like Troll 2.

105 makeitstop  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 12:59:35pm

re: #93 Bulworth

OT: DOW at 13,150. That's some major soshulism.

Worst Socialist ever.

106 lawhawk  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 1:01:08pm

re: #96 engineer cat

Rising Tide... sudsy...

107 HappyWarrior  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 1:02:31pm

re: #105 makeitstop

Worst Socialist ever.

He's the worst terrorist sympathizer ever too.

108 Kragar  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 1:03:39pm

re: #106 lawhawk

Rising Tide... sudsy...

Rising Tide Sudsy
is the start of a haiku
but where will it end?

109 Bulworth  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 1:04:24pm

re: #100 Ministry of Fairness and Balance

The price for a big box of Tide can run as high as $20. Thieves cash in by stealing it and selling it for $5 to $10.

Um. wth?

110 Tigger2005  Tue, Mar 13, 2012 3:01:55pm

Charles' comment about Sandra Fluke's attackers not being able to use the excuse of ignorance anymore applies just as well to those who've made a career of attacking evolution or climate science. The average Joe or Jane on the street might be too busy to educate themselves on these issues, but the creationist preachers, the right-wing commentators, the politicians, the bloggers, Ben Stein--they surely know the facts and evidence by now and know their arguments are b.s., but they lie shamelessly to their loyal followers anyway. I don't know how to describe this duplicity as anything but evil.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 121 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 282 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1