Wednesday, March 7, 2012

When Life Gives You Electric Lemons...



Hopefully, we're nearing the end of the news cycles in which we'll hear about Sandra Fluke's tail...er, tale...that she can't afford birth control. Or rather that she can afford it, but doesn't think it's fairzy-wairzy for her to pay for it when there are still rich people eating hot meals and sleeping indoors.
Frankly, Hope n' Change is beyond sick of all this nonsense. At yesterday's news conference, when Barack Obama could have been talking about knifing Israel in the back, the job market from Hell, and the ongoing search for a number bigger than "trillions" to describe the debts he's running up, reporters instead asked him for his opinion of Rush Limbaugh referring to Ms. Fluke as a "slut" (for which Rush subsequently apologized).

"I thought about Malia and Sasha," the president answered - although why the word "slut" made him think of them is none of our business. Hey, he's the one who suggests they could be "punished with a baby" for sleeping around - we don't even know them!

The president added that if his girls are ever called before Congress to testify (which we're giving better than even odds), he wouldn't "want them attacked or called horrible names when they’re being good citizens."


Unlike Sarah Palin, presumably, who was called a "c*nt" and "tw*t" by Bill Maher, who just gave Barry $1 million with which to run attack ads on Republicans. Of course, there's NO WAY that Obama would keep money from a man who thinks so little of women (like his wife and daughters), so he's giving it all back. When Hell freezes over.

But for now, since there are really no big issues facing the nation other than the occasional use of coarse language, Barack Obama has agreed to school us all in civility...and says he'll do so through "leading by example."

No doubt so that the people he sneeringly calls "teabaggers" will learn some manners.

-

Million-dollar Obama donor Bill Maher makes another point about civility.
-

47 comments:

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Obama's kids didn't get to choose their parents and they have no say in how they are used as props by their alleged father. They are off limits and protected from snarky comments by me. It would be stupid to take the focus off the real source of our pain and looming destruction...daddy (maybe). This is the only reason what Rush did was wrong. His assessment of that Fluke slut was spot on, but it becomes a distraction from the real problems at hand; namely, the continuing assault on liberty. That Turdboy's fluffers in the media don't see that they are in the same crosshairs is just plain stupid. I would laugh at their fate if the consequences to the rest of the nation weren't so dire.

John the Econ said...

I listened to a bit of yesterday's news conference, such as it was, and was again surprised that he'd use his own kids as a prop in the "slut" debate. Very sad. I agree with AHD; just because Obama is willing to exploit his own kids to make a political point doesn't mean that I will. I guess have more respect for them than even he does.

But then again, if one of my daughters were to purposely go before the media spotlight and spout the kind of nonsense blurted by Sandra Fluke, they'd be on their own. I myself would be going into hiding from embarrassment for raising such an complete, shameless idiot.

Yeah, Limbaugh lost it. And he’s played right into the Democrat’s trap. The louder the voices have gotten on this whole “planned parenthood” thing, the lower the IQ falls, and that is right where they want it. Absolutely nobody now has the intellect or balls to ask the real question:

Why is any of this the government’s business?

Is it only I that finds it absurd that a 30-year-old woman who is capable and can afford to attend a $50,000-per-year law school is also seemingly incapable of procuring her own birth control?

It’s really not all that expensive, (free, if you look hard enough) and is available virtually everywhere. And yet, Sandra Fluke is upset that it is not simply dispatched to her, automatically and without any cost whatsoever.

Geeze, I mean I can think of a dozen things I need just to survive before birth control comes into the picture. Why isn’t she complaining that a government-certified nutritional breakfast is left on her doorstep every morning lest she get hungry? Or is that next year’s cause?

Merely a generation or so ago, would this spectacle have even been possible? I mean a grown, supposedly educated woman going before the government and national media complaining that her sex life is being inhibited because birth control is not just free for the asking at a time and place of her choosing? Seriously!

Yes, Limbaugh was an idiot for losing it and calling her a slut. What she really is, is just plain pathetic. She’s an embarrassment; a walking-talking symbol of where 50-years of liberalism and radical feminism has taken us as a nation. To hear people like Sandra Fluke tell it, today nobody, not even the most affluent and educated in our society are capable to taking care of themselves? Seriously?

Coon Tasty said...

@John the Econ - She isn't paying for that education; she's there on a "Public Interest" scholarship (i.e. a scholarship NOT earned through academic merit.)

Sandra Fluke is a professional liberal activist, who deliberately chose a Catholic university so that she could try to force them to provide her with contraception; the hypocrisy of liberals being that they think they have the right to force their opinions on you...but you have no right to force your opinions on them.

This whole thing reeks of long range planning. I would be very surprised if this whole affair wasn't organised by liberals quite some time ago.

Spon said...

All this rhetoric from the empty
suit that claims he never listens to the pundits. Another day, another line of BS.

John the Econ said...

@Coon Tasty: That Ms Fluke is at Georgetown on a "Public Interest" scholarship only demonstrates how far Georgetown has let its standards slip. They’re getting what they deserve. If I was a paying student there, I’d demand a refund of some of my tuition, along with my “free” sex.

Speaking of: Aren’t liberals always complaining that they don’t want the government in people’s bedrooms? Is there an exception for when the government mandates that someone pays for your hanky-panky? I have news for Ms. Fluke; When someone other than yourself foots the bill for something, they do get the right, and ultimately will force their opinions on you. Keep it up. Sooner or later you’re going to learn that the hard way.

What Rush Limbaugh should have said: Hey, why not mandate that her health plan also pay for enough booze to make a rabid feminist attractive enough to need birth control in the first place.

Ooooops. Now I’ve done it. There go my sponsors…

Colby said...

Stilton,
Dead on target today, but where in the world did you get the picture of Bill Mahrer proudly displaying his I.Q. for all to see? OK, I know that wasn't very civil, but to tell the truth, I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, and he isn't by far the only liberal celebrity that acts that way.

Yes, Rush Limbaugh should not have used that word, but he may be just like the rest of us in that respect. You get to a point where you are so frustrated (like I am right now) that your mouth operates before your brain kicks in. Then again, perhaps Rush's slip-up wasn't entirely a mistake. He will survive; his ratings will not suffer, and may even increase. I know I'm behind him 101% because he dared to speak what many of us were thinking. Sean Hannity actually said sort of the same thing, but didn't use the word slut. He just said that Fluke must really have a lot of sex to need that much birth control.

My wife and I have managed to be together over 40 years; NEVER had anybody pay for our birth control, and managed to have two planned kids, and zero un-planned kids.

John the Econ,
Excellent post! I'm trying to imagine my daughter being on national news blathering about needing $3,000 worth of birth control. How freaking pathetic! Why didn't she just flash her phone number and offer to f**k every guy in America's brains out? Wow!

Colby said...

John the Econ,
Well, you said what I wanted to say, and now the cat's out of the bag. How drunk would you have to bee to....

Brings up an interesting possibility though. If the government can use tax dollars to buy people birth control and abortions, why not use tax dollars to pay for prostitutes for ugly people who can't get any on their own. After all, everybody should be entitled to sex, right?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Angry Hoosier Dad- I also believe that the president's daughters should be off limits, but if he's going to use them as props I'm not going to give him a free ride on it. Today's commentary, to me, puts my toes on the line but doesn't cross it; I'm not attacking the president's daughters, I'm attacking his own words about them. And I'll be more than happy not to mention them again if Obama can just "shut the Fluke" up about them in his political posturing.

Plus, I resisted the urge to use a joke about "did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?" and think I should get a "Courageous Restraint" medal.

@John the Econ- Great post, and all I can do is try to find various ways of expressing my agreement with you. This is an idiotic and made-up issue, Rush overstepped his bounds, and when all of the distractions are put aside, this is an argument about whether the government needs to provide everything to everyone (and exert the anti-Constitutional power to seize funds to do so) because we've become so unwilling to care for ourselves.

@Coon Tasty- The more we learn about Ms. Fluke, the more we know she is anything but the innocent little student she presented herself as. She's more of a community organizer and radical Left activist. What a shock, huh?

@Spon- Empty suit, empty words. But unfortunately, his actions have real meanings and don't bode well for our country if he's not looking for a new job this time next year.

@John the Econ- Excellent point; if the government pays for something, they're going to control it. So what happens to the much-vaunted privacy in the bedroom then?

And speaking of sponsors, I think Ms. Fluke deserves a new free "sleep number" bed from Rush's former sponsor. Her old one only goes to "100," but she has a lot more partners than that in a school year.

@Colby- Wait, you mean there are pictures of Bill Maher where he doesn't look like that?!

As you point out, I think Rush got a little too angry to be entirely civil. I'm amazed that he's almost unfailingly able to avoid that trap. If I had his job, I'd last about 5 minutes on air before I said something that would get me fired if not lynched.

And ignoring Ms. Fluke's sex appeal for the moment, it is a valid question whether or not the government should go the extra step and start paying for "sexual surrogate" services for those who ain't gettin' any. There's already legal precedent about conjugal visits for prisoners (I prefer to think of these as "con jiggling" visits). And any Liberal will tell you that it's impossible to "Just Say No" to sex - therefore, the homely are likely to become rapists or suicide bombers if not supplied with government provided pleasure partners.

As much as I'm kidding around, this is not a ridiculous argument. Certainly no more so than the one currently sucking all the air out of the news cycles.

John the Econ said...

Well @Colby, the liberals are already ahead of you on that:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7945785/Councils-pay-for-prostitutes-for-the-disabled.html

Just the kind of insanity you can expect once health care becomes "universal" here, and paid for by someone else. Quite frankly, there is absolutely no limit to what liberals think other people's money should be spent on.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- This is what makes satire so hard these days; it's almost impossible to exaggerate anything to the point of ridiculous excess because the reality is already there.

By the way, I followed the link and the hooker in the picture pretty much looks like the low bidder for a government contract.

Which reminds me of a joke which is appropriate here: in the future, when the government guarantees sex, a man visits the Barack Obordello and is delighted to see a variety of beautiful "working girls" in the lounge. But when his number is called, he's assigned a fat, balding, 70-year old hooker with a glass eye. "What's going on?" the man demands of the pimp in charge. "Well, this here is a union shop," the pimp explains. "And Old Mary has got seniority."

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Stilton:
In no way was I suggesting that you had crossed any line, or even gotten close to it, by referencing SCOAMF's cynical use of his own daughters to score political points. By all means, that dung beetle reject needs to be called out for that every time. I still believe that his daughters, his wife, his dog, etc. are little more than convenient props for his political freak show. Yeah, that's how little I think of him.

John the Econ said...

@Stilton, I too noticed that. And like I said above, and comprehensive "sex care" package is going to have to include adequate booze in order to make the whole thing palatable...

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Angry Hoosier Dad- No worries, I didn't think you were calling me out. I agreed with your point and simply wanted to expound a bit on my thoughts. Believe it or not, there's a constant balancing act for me trying to find the fine line between going too far and not going far enough.

@John the Econ- To keep costs down, maybe instead of booze the government can just supply paper bags printed with the faces of people who'd get your motor running.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Guy driving through NV sees a sign, "Sisters of Mercy Whorehouse" and thinks, "Wow, I've never had sex w/ a nun, that sounds hot!" He parks, goes in and the Mother Superior says "that will be $100, up front." He pays, and is directed down a hallway and through a door, that turns out to be an exit. There is a sign there that says "you have just been screwed by the Sisters of Mercy"...

Sadly, Ms Fluke's Free BC (as if women didn't ALL have access to 100% effective and free BC) is merely the tip of the iceberg - she thinks employers that don't cover gender re-assignment surgery on their health care plans are discriminatory towards those who are 'trapped' in a physical body of the 'wrong' gender. Not to trivialize the stress etc associated w/ "trans gender" types nor to minimize their plight, but why the HELL should THAT be covered in employer health policies?

http://thecollegepolitico.com/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance/

CenTexTim said...

Stilton - as a cartoonist you might get a kick out of this one (if you haven't seen it already).

And speaking of the Volt, I'm surprised you didn't take advantage of this line announcing the GM layoffs: "...we are still seeking to align our production with demand,” said GM spokesman Chris Lee.

Kencor04 said...

I get excited every time I see the left expose their propensity for staggering hypocrisy such as this most recent episode with Sandra Fluke. I keep thinking that this is the time the American public is going to wake up and say "enough." I'm still waiting...

Mike Porter said...

Actually, the government does provide this service to the public. Problem here is that it is only available to those liberty minded folks who pay taxes, and only enjoyable by those who are into fiscal and social S&M. Sure wish I could remember that safe-word, 'cause my wallet is getting mighty sore. At any rate, the only thing Rush should apologize for is holding back... 'slut' seems to be a pretty mild description of a loathsome despicable traitorous dog-humping scum-sucking bottom-feeding mother fluker of a whore. As to her sex life, well, that's really none of my business.

txGreg said...

I hate this PC world in which we now live. Did anyone listen to her speech? She described herself as a slut... why get upset just because someone labels it? We need to return to the days of our childhood: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

A more interesting note from the press conference IMHO was El Presidente's response to the question about gas prices (in light of his previous promises to raise energy costs). “Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States, going into reelection, wants gas prices to go up even higher?"

Yeah Mr President... cause that should be the first thing on your mind when your policies are hurting the citizens, is your own reelection.

Colby said...

Stilton,
I was thinking of the paper bag thing, and it occured to me.. what picture would BO's bag have on it? His own? Maybe Imadinnerjacket?

A priest, a rabbi, a Southern Baptist pastor, Jesse Jackson, a duck, and a hooker walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What is this, some kind of a joke?"

Colby said...

Sorry to post so much today, but I'm pissed.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/hey_mr_president_wheres_my_phone_call.html

John the Econ said...

Yes, @txGreg, I did catch the President's interesting answer to the question on gas prices.

I’ve always been bemused by the contrarian energy policy embraced by the progressives. On one hand, they openly espouse their respect and envy for European-style fuel taxes that force their citizens to pay twice what we do here in America. One of the very few areas of basic economics that liberals clearly seem to understand is that of “elasticity of demand” when it comes to energy, cigarettes & booze; they accurately articulate that if the price of a gallon of gasoline was double what it is now, we’d use much less of it, and this would spur the demand for and development of alternative forms of energy & usage.

However on the other hand, they endlessly rail about greedy oil companies and evil “speculators” whenever the cost of fuel spikes and gets to painful levels that will force people to change their behavior. Since this is exactly what they say they want to happen, what possibly could be the cause of such angst other than the need to be two-faced to the voters?

I’ve long argued that much of their angst comes from their long-standing desire to impose and collect Euro-style taxes to spend on their social agendas and other boondoggles. Every time prices climb, they feel like they are missing out. Contrary to popular Euro-mythology, most of the tax revenues that European nations collect on fuel don’t go towards “green” infrastructure investments or environmental remediation, but instead help pay for their massive welfare states.

During the President’s news conference on Tuesday, one unusually courageous reporter asked this uncharacteristically obvious and hard-hitting question: “Your critics will say on Capitol Hill that you want gas prices to go higher because you have said before, that will wean the American people off fossil fuels, onto renewable fuels. How do you respond to that?”

THE PRESIDENT: “Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go up higher? (Laughter.) Is that -- is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense? “

That’s pretty funny.

Clearly, it wouldn’t make much sense to run on a platform of higher fuel costs. But then what are we to make of the position that he’s taken his entire political career up to this point? Is he actually saying that just because he’s now running for re-election that we’re supposed to forget about what he’s actually done up to this point? Are we to suspend belief and accept his new position for the next 8 months until it’s safe to switch back? Isn’t he really saying that the people who he is counting on for votes are complete idiots?

THE PRESIDENT: “Look, here’s the bottom line with respect to gas prices. I want gas prices lower because they hurt families; because I meet folks every day who have to drive a long way to get to work and them filling up this gas tank gets more and more painful, and it’s a tax out of their pocketbooks, out of their paychecks, and a lot of folks are already operating on the margins right now.”

Well, we all know that. But then isn’t that just saying that with your previous policy you were intentionally “hurting families”?

THE PRESIDENT: “And it's not good for the overall economy, because when gas prices go up, consumer spending oftentimes pulls back. And we're in the midst right now of a recovery that is starting to build up steam, and we don’t want to reverse it. “

You certainly don’t want that, since no President in recent history has ever won re-election with an economy growing at less than 3%. But then again, is that not an admission that your energy policy is devastating to the economy?

Unfortunately, there was no follow-up question on this. (I guess we were lucky to get the question asked in the first place) But which is it Mr. President? Has your energy policy to date been hurting the economy and “families”? And will it not continue to do so once re-elected?

elcedar said...

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

I find myself no longer able to keep up with the Progressive spin cycle. The sad part of all of this is that Rush gave the MSM another reason to completely ignore the reality of what was being said in that press conference (not a Congressional Hearing despite the dog and pony show). The reality is that she wants something for nothing ... and that it isn't the government's job to provide it. I need transportation so that I can get back and forth to my medical appointments ... I live outside of bus routes ... ergo ... it is the government's responsibility to buy me a $40000 Chevy Volt (gotta support Government Motors). Of course there are millions of other Americans (and undocumented immigrants) who also need to have transportation provided in order to maintain their health care decisions as well.

I love the comment by @Coon Tasty, that this reeks of long range liberal planning. Isn't it sad that they couldn't take the same care and planning in preparing a national budget?

@John the Econ the line about the booze is a real hoot!

Every day I'm exposed to crass, demeaning, sexually suggestive, misogynistic evil speak from the so-called musicians of today. I don't hear a peep out of the blow hards in the MSM about banning them from radio and TV? You don't suppose that the MSM is exposing their real agenda?

My final statement: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

John the Econ said...

@Stilton, we didn't even get to see her face in order to be turned off. It's going to take a lot more than a bag over the head to make that appealing.

@Pete(Detroit), you merely point out the slippery slope that is Progressivism. Originally, the feminist argument was "access to". But the feminist movement was immediately co-oped by the leftists, and all of a sudden "access to" became synonymous with "free".

@Kencor04, I hope you are right. It's helpful when the left accidentally gets honest and aligns themselves with the nutcases. The problem is that the "middle class" has been been methodologically usurped into the "dependent class". Too many people really do think that it's somebody else's responsibility to pay for all this out-there stuff.

In other birth non-control news, I hear that Snooki is pregnant, and is due to deliver on the Mayan doomsday later this year. I hear that Rick Santorum is even now lobbying for abortion. If there ever was an argument for forced sterilization, that would probably be it.

I really feel like Mugatu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DVAsmrwdtQ

Are the crazy pills covered under Obamacare?

Cookie said...

Since there are no feminine views expressed today, here's what I have to say. You men are all spot on! In my very conservative and very Christian way of thinking, Rush was right, too. But hey, let's do as Stilt suggests and move beyond this comedy of errors and get to things that are far more important and pressing in this great nation of ours! You know, like getting Obama out of the white house!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Pete(Detroit)- The topic of gender reassignment surgery is an interesting one (and I'm not unsympathetic to some of those people who feel that nature screwed up). BUT, such surgery is not necessary for physical health, but rather to meet the desires of an individual to remake their body so that it conforms to their self-image. But by that token, shouldn't all elective plastic surgery be covered? Liposuction for unsightly love handles? Collagen in the lips?

Insurance should pay for what we need, not what we simply wish for.

@CenTexTim- That's a decent cartoon, though Wiley (the cartoonist) tends to be a screaming liberal. In this case, I think the cartoon is sort of a rohrschach image that either side can project its ideologies on.

Regarding the Volt, I did get a laugh out of the line that GM was "aligning production with demand." Yeah, I'll say they are.

@Kencor04- I'm the same way, except I'm starting to think the American people won't "wake up" because they're actually comatose.

@Mike Porter- You're right, the government does make sure there's plenty of screwing going on, but it's always our turn to be in the barrel. And I got a nice chuckle out of your entirely non-sexual description of Fluke.

@txGreg- Good catch on Obama's response to the gas question. It's always, always, all about him.

@Colby- There are some people who would suggest that Obama would want his bed partner to wear a bag with a picture of the back of Rahm Emmanuel's head, but not me. That would be an awful thing to say, and I'll have no part of it on this blog!

Regarding your link, let me quote from a woman who asks the president: "So where is my phone call? I'm a daughter and a mother, but I didn't get one phone call when I was called a mobster, a terrorist, a nazi, a tea bagger, a homophobe and a racist."

Sweet.

@John the Econ- Absolutely right, and a shame that nobody ever really gives the Bamster a worthwhile followup question. Steven Chu just said that it's the policy of this administration to embrace high prices on gas to make wind, solar, algae, and pixie dust seem more attractive by comparison.

As you point out, Obama DOES expect us to believe what he says when running for election, rather than remember what he's actually done. And the sonofagun gets away with it every freakin' time because of MSM complicity.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@elcedar- We do have to give the devils their due; the Dems and the Media are really good at planning ahead to spin the news and distract from reality. But these skills wouldn't help them prepare a budget at all, because a budget would have to actually add up and have substance...unlike fake news stories which are like sand castles built between waves; intended to wash away as soon as possible.

@John the Econ- Regarding Snooki's pregnancy, I've never seen "Jersey Shore" so I didn't even know she'd gotten married!

Just kidding, I know she's an unmarried slut. Seriously, could we at least consider a government program where women like her are forced to wear a scarlet letter?

Earl said...

Breaking news. The Breitbart video will air tonight on Hannity.

Earl said...

I was actually going to post a comment but was distracted by the Breitbart news. Anyway, I read an article by a woman who went to the same Georgetown law school as Fluke, 20 some years ago. She said that a woman who needs birth control pills for a medical condition (eg. polycystic ovary syndrome) would still be able to get a prescription through the campus medical program. Was Fluke lying? I haven't heard anyone else mention this.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Cookie- Thanks for sharing the feminine perspective (which is a lot more common than the Left would like us to think)! It's not like anyone on the Right is fighting against women's healthcare or contraception. And what husband or father is ignorant or unfeeling about these issues? This is all a huge dog and pony show to distract people from the critical issues out there, and shame on the Dems for trying to reduce women to one-issue stereotypes. But of course, that's what the Dems do with all groups.

@Earl- Hot damn! We can finally get a peek at Obama's college years. Of course, I don't expect any big surprises since in his own autobiography he talks about seeking out Marxists and radicals to hang around with. The guy just flat out hates America.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Earl- As a followup to YOUR followup, I'm sure Fluke wasn't lying to Congress. That would be a crime, right...?

John the Econ said...

@Cookie, your views are out-of-step with contemporary womanhood as defined by the gender feminists, and therefore do not count. You will no doubt be reported to attachwatch, and will be slated for re-education after the elections.

BS Footprint said...

I love it!

Rush's sponsors are feeling the heat for Rush's minor transgression.

But Obama's sponsor Bill Maher can say whatever he wants about a conservative woman (who, after all, is less than human in the liberal eye, no?)

Oh, the irony!

Coon Tasty said...

@SJ - "Wind, solar, algae and pixie dust". You left out the unicorns, man.

Also, every time I hear/see the (pretentious) word "Ms.", I'm reminded of the classic Sledge Hammer episode where Sledge tells a feminist that his name isn't "Mister" Hammer, it's "Merrr".

gray lady said...

In my day (pre-birth control, pre-Rowe vs Wade), the going phrase was "You play, you pay" referring to the expectation that men who got women pregnant were expected to marry them. In today's world (gender parity, sexual equality, and women'r rights), the phrase stil has validity. You play, you pay... for your own birth control.
What Ms. Fluke has forgotten (or ignored) is the constitutional idea that with rights come reponsibilities. She has the right to have sexual intercourse with as many men as can stand her(and if those men are smart enough to go to Georgetown, they'll use double condoms)but she has the responsibility to keep herself from getting pregnant(and keep herself out of the gene pool).

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- I appreciate your ability to put tongue firmly in cheek (when talking to Cookie). But you're so right - there's only one political party which wants to make women (or blacks, or hispanics, or blue collar workers) into unthinking stereotypes, and will harshly punish anyone who gets out of line or off their liberal plantation.

@BS Footprint- Right; Rush can be demonized for calling a promiscuous woman a slut (and apologizing), but Obama's cronies can call women c*nts and not apologize and it's all hunky-dory with the media. There needs to be some word one helluva lot stronger than "irony" or "hypocrisy" to capture this sort of evil mendacity. Maybe the Germans (who came up with "schadenfreude" to describe "enjoying the suffering of others") have a word which will do the trick. I think I'll look into it, because our own vocabulary just isn't equal to the task anymore.

@Coon Tasty- I thought about saying Unicorn Farts, but decided against it because I'm a classy guy. Or maybe I just forgot.

@gray lady- WONderful post, and I thank you! "You play, you pay" should be the law of the land, not just when it comes to sex but any number of choices.

And by the way, unless men have changed a great deal since I was college age, no woman has to pay for birth control unless she really wants to. She simply says, "No condom? No sex." Trust me, the guy will be back from 7-11 with a dozen Trojans in less time than it takes Dominos to deliver a pizza.

BS Footprint said...

@Stilton,
Regarding vocabulary: I just call it B.S. (as is to be expected, given my 'handle'.)

Keep fighting the good fight, your 'toons keep me laughing through the tears...

BS Footprint said...

Oh, one more thing: this strikes me as yet another example (did we really need more?) of the left (and sometimes right) policy: "no enemies on the left, no friends on the right"

Cookie said...

@John the Econ--Thanks for the warning! Bring 'em on!

JustaJeepGuy said...

@Coon Tasty,
I thought I was the only one to remember "Merr" Sledge Hammer! I wonder if that show is available on DVD...

Coon Tasty said...

@JustaJeepGuy -
It is. I bought the whole series from Amazon ages ago.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

Finally choked down my bile over this enough to comment.

Besides this Fluke issue, the conditions at Georgetown (a Catholic university) in terms of Catholic tenets is deplorable - as they are at pretty much all Catholic universities. Any assumptions that, because they are labelled Catholic, these universities are of a higher moral cloth than state universities or community colleges are incorrect - this made obvious by the following points - and this list is not exhaustive:

• Øbama has been the commencement speaker at Notre Dame.
• Proponents of abortion, medically-induced suicide, and homosexuality - all, notably, against Catholic doctrine - have been invited as keynote speakers at many Catholic universities.
• Notre Dame (again!) brought criminal trespass charges against pro-life demonstrators for praying on campus, of all things
• Blasphemous and disgustingly perverted plays and movies have been featured on many Catholic campuses.

Unfortunately, Catholic clergy and laymen alike saw much of what has occurred in our government over the past century as conducive to the achievement of their charitable goals, so they remained silent on social issues. Now, waking up from their dream, they find themselves in a theological nightmare; they look about to see themselves surrounded by wolves - wolves they've bred themselves, one by one. It quite literally sickens me.

This deterioration of the Catholicism in the US goes much deeper than that, though. Unfortunately, few Catholics remain in the US that follow the church's teaching - including the basic tenet of Sunday Mass or the very basic Christian philosophy of keeping the Lord's day holy.

But why should we expect different? Why should the Catholic Church in the US be any different than our culture as a whole? We, as a country, have no moral compass any longer. The progressives have been very successfully at play.

Per Rush and this "woman", I'm simply grateful that it wasn't one of the (supposed) conservative candidates that ran with the bait. Imagine the uproar if one had! I'm sure Fluke's "public service" scholarship is backed in full by the DNC...

Emmentaler Limburger said...

Go here: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/resign/SvJr4Q9h and sign the one word petition to Øbama: Resign. Idid :o)

Chuck said...

@Emmentaler Limburger - Thanks for the link. Petiton signed!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@BS Footprint- Thanks for the nice words! And don't forget to wipe those feet on the doormat before stepping on the nice rugs (grin).

@JustaJeepGuy & Coon Tasty- Hey, I remember that show too! Haven't seen it in a long time. Wonder if it's lurking in Netflix...?

@Emmentaler- The theology involved in the whole Fluke issue interests me not at all (nor do the failings of individuals or the church). But I care a lot about the Constitution and its protections as they relate to our beliefs...which is why I feel so passionately about this issue, and am so angry at the way it's been deliberately mischaracterized.

@Chuck- As much as I wanted to sign that petition, I didn't like all the language in the "privacy policy" and backed away slowly when I got to the point about them keeping all of your identifying information until the end of the Bamster's term. No thanks.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@SJ: Shoot, man! Use your secret identity. I did. I don't think that anyone is naive enough to believe that anything on that site will ever be acted upon by this administration - pshaw, no! It's all just fluffy PR crap intended to make it appear that the Imperious Leader is interested in what may be troubling the minds of the little people. If he happens to get an idea or two from it to pump up his pompous speeches - well, that's just a bonus.

But that the "resign" petition has respondents numbering an order of magnitude or two beyond any of the other fluffy crap there should certainly send a message- and he'd get called out on it pretty quickly is it conveniently disappeared... Sign it - ya know you wanna...

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Emmentaler- Aw, what the hell. I signed up and signed the petition (and added a link to it on my Facebook page, I think). I have to confess, it felt good. And it's not like I wasn't on the enemies list already (grin).

Chuck said...

I backed out the first time, too, but the way I look at it is that they already know who I am because: I'm White; Christian; Conservative; Retired Army; and vocal about my disdain for the left.

By the way, I just broke down and got a Google account so I could follow this site. I'm #425. Thanks for all you do, Stilton.