Who The Hell Is Sandra Fluke Anyway?

Like most all of my posts on here, you can click the title for the full source article.

This Fluke character showing up out of nowhere to testify before Congress about contraception got me wondering...just who the hell is she anyway?

She's a law student. According to the article and other stuff I have picked up here and there, she is at least 30, not 23 and she chose to attend Georgetown knowing full well that they do not offer coverage for contraception. She's an activist who is seeking out a platform so that she may be heard. Basically, she was looking for a conflict and she found it. This makes it even harder for me to have a sympathetic ear for her cause. It is one thing to be presented with a problem and making a choice of how to deal with it but, when you are seeking out controversy for the sake of drawing attention, the whole idea just turns into an irritation. Personally, I think she has hurt her cause much more than actually helping.



In response to a post I found from a friend on Facebook, I wrote what follows this paragraph...(I have edited out a few things like specific names of the people I addressed and made some corrections on my spelling). The first paragraph I wrote was directed towards a woman that was carrying on about how there are more women than men in the general population but only 25% of women are represented in government. She seemed to be insinuating that women were being kept out of politics by men...probably white men...since liberals hate white men.

There have always been more women than men in numbers. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make ***. Many woman are typically not interested in politics. It's just natural. Those that are can and do participate in politics. It's very similar to male dominated areas in college like Physics. Most woman are just not interested in certain areas. It doesn't mean anyone is trying to shut them out, it's just a matter of reality. Most men are not interested in doing scrap booking. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to stop the eager, young, male scrap-booker.

G****, I could not agree with you more. This Fluke is nothing more than a typical, left-wing activist trying to pull one over on the people.

Health and religion have always been closely related since the beginning of time. One of the very first things the Bible discusses are instructions on what to eat and how to take care of our bodies. BTW, I'm a vegetarian (10 years now), and one day hope to go to the original diet -- VEGAN. This is historical and this is ONE reason why government run health care hits a big nerve with people like me. I'm up for discussing private run health care that is subsidized by the government for those that are struggling and in need but I do not want some government official, in the case of Obamacare- The Secretary of Health and Human Services, having control over what care I can or cannot receive. I'm pushing 40 already and that is the magic age where the government starts rationing care. The bill is a nightmare ...but, I digress...

Fluke cites some interesting reasons for why woman should be given contraception. In one story she claims a woman needs the pill to control seizures but, when I tried looking this up, I found just the opposite...meaning that woman who have seizures should avoid the pill. I'm not a doctor so, let's just say Fluke is correct. In another story she cites a woman that was told to go on birth control because if she were to get pregnant again, it would put her life at risk. Okay. Fine. Fair enough. Perhaps there are some serious reasons for having contraception however, just like so many other medical issues, people are turned off by this. People do not want to pay for the problems of others and they certainly do not want to compensate women who are sexually active by choice.

Personally, I do not want to pay for some fat ass who has a heart attack because he keeps stuffing his face with cheeseburgers and other horrible food that put him in that medical condition in the first place. Sorry. I try very hard to take care of myself and eat right so I can avoid those problems. It's most certainly a person's right to choose what they do with their bodies but, why is it then everyone else's responsibility to pay the price?

What happens when STD's increase due to the easy accessibility of birth control? More sex leads to other problems that birth control cannot always curtail. How about yeast infections? Depending on the method people choose, complications can and will arise. Many birth controls have been recalled due to their negative side-effects. Yaz is one that has caused death. There are others that puncture holes in the uterus, or if a woman does become pregnant her life can be in danger as well as the baby's. Who is going to pay for that? There is no end here and when the government keeps putting a band-aid on stuff, another problem finds its way to the surface. Just read history and take a look at other countries. It's not rocket science.

For a party that is always crying out about woman's rights and keeping the government out of the bedroom and out of their wombs, it's interesting that in this case, the dems want the government in their wombs. This is just another example of the inconsistencies and selective outrage that the left is known for.

If you are David Letterman, you can call Palin's daughter a whore/slut. If you are Randi Rhodes you can call for the assassination of Bush. If you are Rosie O'Donnell, you can pretend you have a degree in Physics and proceed to tell people that steel doesn't melt and that the Twin Towers fell at the speed of gravity (both of which are flat out lies!), insinuating that the government was behind 9/11. I won't mention the others that have already been brought up since you already know... (Keith Obermann while a news anchor on MSNBC called Michelle Malkin a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick, MSNBC's Ed Schultz called Laura Ingram a right wing slut)...but the point is, the left is notorious for saying the nastiest things about Republicans...just look at SNL every weekend. If you say anything about it, it's "just a joke," and another favorite is to just dismiss anything you say by calling you a "Tea bagger," "racist," "homophobe," etc., anything to shut you up and stop debate.

BTW, Bill Maher was NOT pushed off the air by the right, quite the contrary. It was the right that was standing up for him and Bill even admitted that on his show. Savage, Rush, O'Reilly, and I am pretty sure even Medved...and a few others stood up for Maher's right to say what he wanted. That is FACT. It was the liberals who shut him down and same with Juan Williams who was fired from NPR for stating that he always feels a little uncomfortable when there is a Muslim on the plane he takes. Fox picked him up, while the liberals ate their own. It has always been conservatives that have fought for people to say what they feel and it is always the liberals who act like they are better than everyone, condemning anything a conservative says, while turning a blind eye to those vile creatures on the left.

With all that being said...typically this is all stuff played out in the media and unfortunately, we are only exposed to the extremes on both sides. I rarely meet a person in real life, that describes themselves as conservative or liberal that falls into the categories I have pointed out above. MOST of the "real people" are somewhere in between and do not engage in all this rhetoric. Most people want to find a happy medium.

Rush will NOT fall from this at all. He has some 6 million listeners...probably more. He will easily pick up more advertisers eager to get in front of his audience.

The man is a private citizen, just like the liberals I mentioned above. They ALL have a right to say what they want to say and do not have to apologize for it. I might disagree with everything someone says but I will most certainly fight for their right to say it. I would never try and shut someone down because they are ignorant. Their ideas and beliefs should be scrutinized equally.

The very idea that the left wants to shut Rush down is only further proof of how unbelievably intolerant the left has become. Just as irony presents itself in everything...the liberal simply projects what they truly are onto those they hate. Intolerant and scared of debate.

If they really were interested in debate and being civil, they would go after Rush and his ideas, not his character. All of the signs I have seen lately on Facebook have brought up his past marriages (because apparently liberals have never been divorced and remarried), his drug use (as if liberals never use drugs), and other personal struggles that all of us have either gone through or know someone that has. There is almost no mention of his ideas, just insults.

Why is okay to ridicule a man for having suffered a pain pill addiction? Do you know how easy it is for someone to go down that road? This is a huge issue that our country is facing. Oh, and I guess with government health care, it will the government that is responsible for their distribution. Here we see legal drugs that are highly addictive and destroying people's lives. Once again, we witness the hypocrisy of the left...if it's a liberal in Hollywood struggling like child-molester Michael Jackson, or crack-head Whitney, or air-head Anna Nicole (whom I actually adored), everyone in the media wants someone's head on a platter because apparently everyone else is responsible for their death. Celebrities are never responsible for their own problems.

Rush on the other hand, and Jeb Bush's daughter (who also had a public battle with drugs and other legal issues), are considered evil and should be given no sympathy whatsoever. In fact, it is almost encouraged to ridicule and demonize them repeatedly, even if those problems have been overcome. Rush has been off drugs for quite a long period of time and I see comments about his drug use as if it were yesterday. Why??

Attack ideas, not the person. Ad hominem attacks only hurt your arguments.

As with everything...all the right asks for is a little consistency and not all this selective outrage and selective morals.

I'm sorry...I forgot to address this:

Beth ******* ******** The big difference between what Rush said and what other liberal leaning pundits have said about certain women (I'm guessing what was being referenced was Maher calling Palin a c*nt), is that one flip remark on a late-night, upper-tier cable broadcast against a very vocal public personality is so much different than the SEVERAL hours Rush devoted to inventing new ways to call a young, private citizen a slut. During his afternoon drive-time, public airwaves program.

That is like saying it's okay to do something wrong as long as there are not too many people watching. Seriously, this has got to be the most absurd excuse I have ever heard! Either you are outraged over vile comments or you are not. It does not matter the size of the audience. Wrong is wrong. Again, selective outrage, based on selective "made-up-rules." Could you imagine if a conservative said this???? Holy sh!t.

Unbelievable.

Based on the things I have seen on Facebook from liberals, attacking Rush is all they can do. I have tried the past few days to take some time to articulate a well thought out response to some of the vile images and status updates about Rush. As expected, I am met with immature, uninformed, ignorant comments. Take for example this post:

My friend posted this pic. His friend responded:

Beverly ****** ********* He calls us "Feminazi's", I think we should rise up, shut him down, and humiliate this fat assed, drug addled, POS!

...and my response:

Yes, how dare anyone put up with an opinion that is not shared by liberals! "Shut him down"...wow. "Drug addled POS!"??? Yes, no liberals do drugs, right? It's always a disease when it's a liberal. If you're a conservative or a Republican, you're a drug addled piece of sh!t. Hypocrisy at its finest! ...and you wonder why you're called a "feminazi"? Really?

Not one peep from anyone about the hateful and vicious remarks towards Republicans and their children by... Bill Maher, David Letterman, Randi Rhodes, Matt Damon, Rosie O'Donnell....shall I go on? The list of liberals who say the nastiest things go unmentioned. No one ever calls for them to be "shut down." They are all private citizens, just like Rush, but Democrats are calling for the GOP to denounce Rush's comments? Huh? He is NOT a servant of the people. I've NEVER heard the DNC denounce the nasty, evil comments constantly made by people on the left.

Rush says he doesn't want tax payers to fork over money for this woman's sex life and calls her what she is ...to be compensated for having sex...what else do you call a woman who wants to be paid for having sex? A prostitute.

Look, I want to know who this woman is. Why was she even called to testify for any of this? She is a law student who has NO qualifications. Obama apparently is "listening" to her but WHY? Who the hell is she? She is basically a nobody who is claiming the government must compensate people for having sex.

Disagree with me if any of you like but, I cannot fathom why people on the left are so intolerant with their, "shut him down" and other vile remarks. Just the idea that some people cannot seem to understand why Rush and conservatives are angry about this only proves to show who the intolerant and closed-minded in our society really are.

You would think that I made my point clear enough but, as usual, someone with a low IQ and a liberal bias clearly cannot fathom reading an entire post that does not parrot their limited minds. Instead, it appears as though this response...

Rosie ******* You're clearly the on who gets extremely offended by anyone who doesn't agree with you. Hey pot, it's me kettle, you're looking mighty black today.

...was written in a haze of anger, where the entire word "one" could not even be fully spelled. Notice how there is no argument, no articulation of an idea, just a reactionary-type of response, similar to that of a trained monkey.

Of course she didn't take the time to read my entire post. Had she, she would realize that there is nothing I said that demonstrates intolerance. The friend whose wall this was posted on happens to be an old college friend who I have always spared with about politics. We disagree on most all topics but, unlike his friend Rosie, he knows how to present an argument. He is very different from a typical-lefty and will take the time to argue his position with passion and detachment -- neither one of us gets upset personally with each other.

Rosie is obviously one of those programmed liberals. These are liberals that most likely went to public school where they were taught what to think and not how to think. The pathetic, predictable response that Rosie gave me should give all of us pause. This is just another example of how it is becoming more and more acceptable for people to ignore anyone that does not agree with them and meet them with insults and trite comments. There is no desire to engage or learn more about any topic. They simply take what they hear from teachers and the news and parrot their words.

My response to her?

Where am I offended? Please point to me what it is I said that you would infer such a thing? I am getting the feeling that you did not really read my post. Instead, you want to make accusations that are simply NOT true.

I know Justin personally and have often disagreed with him on many issues but never once have I been "offended" by any of his views. He also takes the time to articulate his points with information, unlike your post, which is basically silly, immature, uninformed, and quite frankly ignorant.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the left...as usual, it's okay for you all to demonize, insult, and attack someone's character with ad hominem attacks and no one on the left makes a peep. Conservative woman are constantly put down and referred to by liberals in the most vile terms but, not one liberal woman says a damn word about it. It's called selective outrage.

Either you think attacking someone personally is wrong or you do not. I do not care since, I am not afraid of debate, nor do I leave little trite comments like you just did, Rosie. I do not worry about silly name calling because the left does it all the time. I've had people do it to me constantly...so? If that's what someone wants to say, so be it.

I find it hilarious that Justin would post this pic while at the same time trying to say it was wrong for Rush to call this girl a slut. If the left were actually interested in debate, they would attack his ideas, not his character, like this pic is doing. Again, it's either wrong or it's not. If you think it's wrong to call names, then why is the photo okay? Selective rules, selective morals, and selective outrage are what the left in this country are known for. I'm not sure why you would be proud of that but, to each their own.

If you want to have a dialogue, perhaps you should focus on presenting an actual argument where you are actually articulating your ideas, rather than some flippant remark that has no basis on what I posted earlier. Take the time to breath and actually READ and comprehend what it is I said before you choose to comment. 

It's called critical thinking...learn it, love it, use it.

I guess I will have to wait and see if I get a response but, I'm almost positive that if I do it will be one of those typical, "I better not say anything I will regret, " "I am not even going to discuss this further, you are clearly a-- insert insulting word, judging my character to immediately cease debate...you can choose from a variety of insults like homophobe, racist, Tea-Bagger, evil Republican, hateful, not Christian like, etc.," or something to slime their way out of having to justify their beliefs through reason and logic. Then again, if they used logic or critical thinking, they wouldn't be liberal, now would they?