It's Like Totally Different When a Liberal Blowhard Guy Calls a Conservative Woman a Twat!

You've probably heard that recidivist jackass Rush Limbaugh called a Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke "a slut" and "a prostitute" after she testified before Congress about wanting the Jesuits who run her college to pay for her birth control pills. Just to make sure that nobody but nobody ever gets sexually aroused again, the broadcaster who once "had talent on loan from God" spun out a scenario in which he would also watch a video of Fluke having sex. Limbaugh subsequently fake-apologized for his untoward remarks. Why a fake apology? Because being a former Oxycontin addict and super-conservative marrying man means never having to say you're sorry. Not as long as a Democrat's in the White House at least.

But the comedy ain't done yet. Over at The New Republic, Timothy Noah explains why it's like totally different when Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin "a twat" and "a cunt," or when Keith Olbermann calls Michelle Malkin a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

Here you go:

It's different in two ways. 

First, all of the people who were subjected to verbal abuse by the liberal- or left-leaning blowhards and smart-asses mentioned above are public figures. If you follow politics you know who they are. Fluke, on the other hand, though a political activist, was not really a public figure. If you follow politics you probably didn't know who she was until Limbaugh attacked her.

Second, and more important, none of the rappers and liberals and leftists mentioned above is so feared by President Obama or any other Democrat that said Democrat would hesitate to criticize him if the occasion warranted it. That isn't necessarily because Democrats are braver people. It's because there is no rapper or liberal or leftist commentator or talk-radio host or comedian who commands anything equivalent to the knuckle-dragging army of haters that Limbaugh leads on the right.

Read more here.

Yeah, that's not really much of a counter-argument.

For starters, Noah goes pretty light on the abuse-o-meter. At The Daily Beast, Kirsten Powers provides a somewhat more in-depth catalog of vagina dentata imagineering by liberal asshats.

Olbermann, for instance, suggested that that the best way to take Hillary Clinton out of the 2008 presidential race "was to find 'somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.'" And that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents. Enchante!

Matt Taibbi, whom Noah tags for calling Andrew Breitbart "a douche" in his obit, is similarly scampish toward the ladies, writes Powers:

Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.)

Boy, those jokes are fall-down funny, aren't they?

And then there's Chris Matthews, the leg-tingled MSNBC host and stalwart JFK defender, who particularly seems to thrive on attacking Hillary Clinton in gender-specific terms:

Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.”

More Powers here.

But if Noah's catalog of rancid liberal misogyny is incomplete, is he right that Fluke isn't a public figure and hence not fair game? She's not as famous or all growed up as, say Hillary Clinton or Laura Ingraham ("a right-wing slut" according to MSNBC populist Ed Schultz), but even Noah notes that she's a political activist. But that's besides the point: How does being, I don't know, a  syndicated columnist such as Michelle Malkin, make it less fucked up that Matt Taibbi wants to put "a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth"? The point isn't that Rush Limbaugh is a bigger tool than liberals who resort to sad-sack sexist japes. It's that there's something seriously fucked up with all of that sort of thing. Especially when you're pretending to be serious thinkers or writers or commentators.

Noah's second reason for why Limbaugh needs to be held to a different standard is also odd: El Rushbo has more divisions than the Pope when it comes to commanding a Dittohead Army or something. If asked about it, any pol should dismiss such dumb comments, as should listeners. What exactly that has to do with, say NPR favorite Marc Maron's comments about hate-fucking Michelle Bachmann, I don't know.

If you've ever needed a reason to rethink dumb attachments to the left-right, liberal-conservative Manicheanism at the heart of conventional politics, the sort of idiotic Team Red vs. Team Blue mentality underscored by Noah's need to exonerate the misogyny of his ideological allies should give you something to ponder.

Update: Last night, Timothy Noah replied at TNR to this post, writing that he was not defending "the unacceptably vile things" that folks such as Taibbi, Olbermann, and Maher has said. Rather, he reiterates his point that "It matters more to society what a person with a big following says than what a person with a small following says" (italics in original). 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Joe M||

    Second, and more important, none of the rappers and liberals and leftists mentioned above is so feared by President Obama or any other Democrat that said Democrat would hesitate to criticize him if the occasion warranted it.

    That's pretty much the rub, isn't it, you stinking hypocrite.

  • Extra Sausage||

    Not that libertarian men are not dicks.

  • Extra Babies||

    GET IN MAH BELLY

  • Matt Taibbi||

    I want them all in my mouth on the double!

  • Obama||

    I have something else for your mouth.

  • shrike||

    MINE!!!

  • ||

    You epitomize the vile left! Such a perfect example!

  • ||

    matt outs himself. he's a queen bitch! who knew! It's so thrilling!

  • Tony||

    The Team Red vs. Team Blue mentality is not idiotic, as it corresponds to real, huge issues in the world.

    What's utterly idiotic is the obsessive need of supposedly neutral observers to dredge up equivalencies whenever someone on Team Red does something bad.

  • sloopyinca||

    dredge up equivalencies

    You misspelled "point out hypocrisies."

  • Tony||

    And you and all libertarians miss the policy forest for the speech police trees.

    Nobody gives a shit if someone uses insulting language. When the shits start being given is when an entire political party is afraid to do a single thing to upset a morbidly obese shock jock who calls women sluts essentially for daring to contemplate having sex with men other than him.

  • wareagle||

    of course, people give a shit; at least when someone on the right says something out of school. That's the whole goddamm point of this "sun rises in the East" article.

    And nice job with the usual straw man argument. No one cares if Fluke fucks every guy who can even say Georgetown Law. But a helluva lot of folks think that asking the rest of us to foot her birth control bill is chutzpah of a new level.

  • ||

    All Rush did was call her out for what she was and evidently still is. And unfortunate he had to be pushed to apologize for it. A real shame really. She was a plant for the purpose of distraction along with being a slut who has the audacity to ask me and the rest of hard working Americans to pay for her sexcapdes on campus. It is all so totally ludicrous I am not sure whether to laugh or cry.

  • ||

    @LoLAinMA
    Wow - you really have no clue what you are talking about. First, Fluke never once mentioned her sex life in her testimony. Rush completely made that up. Second, the reference health care plan is provided by a private college. Georgetown is not a public school so no taxpayer money is even in question here. Rush lied about that too. And sadly, you believed all of it!

  • TXAntimedia||

    Boy, you're really up to speed. Fluke is attending a Catholic school for the express purpose of challenging their policy of not providing insurance coverage for contraception. Which ties nicely into the Dem diversion that this is a battle about contraception and not the First Amendment.

    So you completely ignore the fact that the administration is trying to force Catholic entities, against their will, to provide not only contraceptives but sterilization and abortifacient medications, and then you expect us to find your position reasonable?

    Nice try.

  • ||

    Nice try to you. Fluke is attending a non-religious school that is run by catholics. She then pays her private money for health insurance. Catholics are free to run their church's and their religious schools any discriminatory way they want. But they dont have a right to impose their religious beliefs on others in the commercial sphere. Thats what they are doint. They dont have a right to impose their religious beliefs on others which is what they are doing.
    Nice try.

  • ||

    Where does one come to the conclusion that the Jesuit Georgetown University is a "non-religious" school? I love the lefty newspeak. They don't have a right to "impose their religious beliefs" on others by not paying for their contraception.

    Quick, stop imposing your teetotal beliefs on me and buy me a dram of Scotch. I have rights!!!!

  • ||

    "Quick, stop imposing your teetotal beliefs on me and buy me a dram of Scotch. I have rights!!!!"
    That pretty much sums up their twisted view of rights...and everything else.

  • ||

    When you claim that your birth control costs an average of $1,000 a year, I think it's safe to assume that Fluke was referring to her sex life.

  • ||

    No one has to foot her bill for anything. You do realize that health insurance is a form of compensation. You know, like wages. More to the point it is a women's health issue, why on God's green earth should you have a say in decisions best left to her and her doctor?

    So unless you are arguing that Catholic institutions should be able to garnish wages, if they believe an employee is using contraception (or spending their wages on strippers, porn, beer, red meat on Friday, or not tithing enough), then you are simply missing the point.

  • hamilton||

    Sir,

    You may be new here.

    While her insurance was private, she was arguing for federal mandating that employers/insurers cover contraception universally. Hence (since these things cost money) the cost burden is carried by the group, to wit: everyone.

    Further, in the specific instance health coverage is not wages, but a benefit for attending the university - which she chose to attend, mind you, and with clear evidence of what was and was not covered.

    Further still, contraception is not usually a "women's health issue" but a "women's behavior issue" as it has to do with protection from the consequences of a voluntary activity. I doubt many H&R readers would find coverage of The Pill for some health reason (sorry, I don't know LadyParts medicine) to be objectionable.

    Thanks so much for visiting.

  • ||

    Remember that Religious institutions are totally exempt from covering contraception.

    Notice "covering" not "paying for". Because birth control is not free. Women pay their insurance premiums and expect that in return they get the service paid for - that is, coverage of all medical needs and medications.

    And contraception is most definitely and absolutely a women's health issue. Women's sexual organs are part of their bodies. Birth control pills, prescribed by DOCTORS to prevent pregnancy or ovarian cysts, or debilitating menstrual cycles or whatever, are part of women's overall health care.

    It is RESPONSIBLE and MEDICALLY PRUDENT to discuss contraception with gynecologists and if that doctor finds it medically necessary he/she will prescribe it and monitor the usage of that drug. This is no different than any other drug, including and especially Viagra.

  • ||

    So, are you taking the pure libertarian position that the government should hove absolutely no regulatory power over insurance companies, that there should be no minimum coverage requirements at all? If I want to buy insurance, should I have to run through a list of every possible ailment or affliction that might effect me, making sure that each is covered? If not, what is the difference between requiring coverage for contraception and requiring it for pregnancy to blood transfusions?

  • ||

    You mean actually read your policy? Yes, that would be a good idea.

  • S.R.Nance||

    Glad you included the disclaimer. The contraceptive pill is used for many other medical conditions (including but not limited to: dysmenorrhea, polycystic ovarian disease, and endometriosis. Ms Fluke wished to testify about a fellow student who needed the pill for a medical condition but was unable to get it because it's not covered. Note: VIAGRA is covered!

  • ||

    No one is forced to go to that university and then subsequently forced to purchase that insurance.

    There are other universities and other health plans.

  • ||

    This is funny.

    You can construe many health issues as "behavior" issues as our health is so very influenced by our behavior. Perhaps we shouldn't cover heart surgery or treatment if the individual is obese as that may imply that they eat a lot and that is clearly behavior related. Under the "behaviour issue" category we can include most accidents as they often result from behavior, as well as using any cancer-causing products, or any condition that can plausibly be attributed to lifestyle habits. So after that what are left with, communicable diseases?

  • ||

    The dumb is strong here. If the benefit is mere (untaxed!) compensation, it is subject to negotiation, correct? Problem solved - the non-coverage of birth control services in the insurance plan is pre-negotiated out of contracts for employment with Catholic institutions. But your statist jerkoff golden Urkel can't let that be, of course.

  • ||

    I guess I'm just dumb, but isn't the idea to require all insurance plans to cover a certain set of preventative procedures? Some folks believe that it is possible to reduce overall healthcare costs by covering, and thus encouraging people to use, things like colonoscopies, cancer screening, mammograms, and (Gasp) contraception. If any organization can opt out of the requirements because of a "moral objection," the requirements are meaningless.

  • ||

    Maybe you're dumb, but the more likely answer is that you can't stand that someone, somewhere had a small measure of freedom and attempted to exercise it outside of the reach of our moral betters in the Federal regulatory state. Heaven forfend that anyone should be beyond the strong guiding hand of your Great Gilded Urkel.

  • ||

    Oddly enough, HHS has recommended that the age where colonscopies and mommograms are encouraged has been raised. But hey, what's few more deaths from colon and breast cancer in younger people, if we can violate other people's first amendment rights and get everyone free birth control.

  • hk||

    Birth control costs 9 dollars a month, and condoms are safer anyway. This is not a health issue rather insurance companies don't see this as an insurance issue.

    If you don't like it then go to another company. You don't get to enslave us for your secular beliefs, read the Constitution.

  • hk||

    Also you pay for your own fucking lifestyle, poor men or prudish women shouldn't have to pay for some fucking idiot's lifestyle.

    Personal responsibility.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tiny,

    When the shits start being given is when an entire political party is afraid to do a single thing to upset a morbidly obese shock jock who calls women sluts essentially for daring to contemplate having sex with men other than him.


    And here I thought he was outraged at a political activist wanting her employer to give her free beer... I mean, free birth control.

  • sloopyinca||

    Nobody gives a shit if someone uses insulting language.

    That's why the left-o-sphere has ignored Limbaugh's comment and has moved on to discuss $5/gal gas, the AG saying it's fine to kill Americans without due process or Obama moving the G8 to Camp David because he's afraid the Occutards will make him look foolish.

  • Tony||

    Fine, by nobody I mean I don't give a shit. But really I do. I want Rush Limbaugh to keep saying these things. I will gladly sacrifice a little bit of civility in national discourse if it means he stops his legion of inbred moron followers from running my country.

  • sloopyinca||

    Way to evade my point, dickhead.

  • Tony||

    Sincere apology, I didn't read it. I share your concern that national discourse cannot involve important things. I'm sure you share my opinion that vastly improving national education standards and funding is the only plausible solution.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm sure you share my opinion that vastly improving national education standards and funding is the only plausible solution.

    Of course I do. That's why I think public schools should be razed, their teachers given pink slips and every penny earmarked for education dropped out of helicopters or returned to the taxpayers.

  • Bill Maher||

    Does anyone remember when I made a joke about Hillary Clinton's pussy?

  • ||

    There you go talking about youreslf again

  • ||

    Bill Maher is a comedian with a marginal audience. Rush is the defacto verbal leader of the Republican Party.

  • TXAntimedia||

    This is such a lame argument it's laughable. The size of your dick doesn't make you less of a dick. It just makes you a less noticeable dick. To those who know you, you're still a dick.

  • ||

    Let me get this straight. The standard of civility depends on how successful one is in getting an audience. Television ratings seems like a poor way to determine one's civility. Bill Maher is worse than Rush Limbaugh (althought the world would be better if both of them went to the moon colony and left the rest of us alone).

    Both stifle real debate with hate language. However, Maher gets the gold medal for foul mouthed bigotry. Limbaugh is extreme but at least does not have the same potty mouth as Maher.

    By the way, Maher uses is ill gotten gain to subsidize the President's PAC, just like the Mexican drug lord. Did the PAC return Maher's money too?

  • ||

    it doesn't make you less offensive if you're audience and influence is smaller than the next dick, but it does rightfully make it less of a political firestorm as opposed to simply insulting. not to mention, not every dick warrants a presidential comment.

  • ||

    You people don't get Rush at all. Here is a Rock DJ who has been barely cruising through life, when he came upon a niche." Hey the left has a bunch of bomb throwers and the right are bound by reason to be polite" He became the 1st true bombthrower on the right, and people like his SHOW! Both sides listen to him, one screaming at the radio the other laughing. Food for thought: Barack Obama is a goldmine to Rush. Rush's Radio show took off when Clinton got elected. He has created more discorse in this primary than support! Wonder why

  • Tony||

    Nonsense. It should be illegal not to send children to public schools. Otherwise, the children of the rich will always enjoy unfair advantages. You will understand when you begin to care more about children than you do to your own, precious freedom.

  • wareagle||

    oh, shut up. The public schools are a clusterfuck, made so by the combination of teachers unions and Dem politicians, who put votes ahead of kids. Spending for education has gone up in virtually every jurisdiction but achievement has gone the opposite way. Those who can are escaping the public system and just give a poor person a voucher and watch how fast that kid leaves.

  • ||

    Then, time and time again, we see how those kids with vouchers are performer worse, or at best, no better then kids in public schools.

    There goes reality's liberal bias rearing its ugly head yet again.

  • TXAntimedia||

    In your dreams, bozo. Go watch "Waiting For Superman" and come back here and tell us how wonderful public schools are and what a failure the private, parochial and charter schools are.

  • Jon||

    You got numbers to back that up? Education spending in the United States is down 12% in the past 5 years, so I'm not sure where you're getting that info from.

  • "your own, precious freedom"||

    Now we know where you stand, Tony, if we didn't already.

  • ||

    Copperheads like Tony have always loved slavery; replacing "plantation" with "collective" won't change that fact.

    The other fact history shows us is that stopping them always involves guns.

  • ||

    Exactly why leftists have tried everything possible to enact gun control before enacting communism on Americans.

    Will we continue to allow them to do it?

  • ||

    I was wondering when Tony was going to start posting in German.

  • Brian||

    I always imagine Tony's posts being read in the voice of Kim Jong Il in Team America: World Police. It just seems fitting.

  • Rob||

    I care a lot about my kids. They're lucky enough to go to one of the few good public schools in LA; we took a long time and spent a lot of money buying a crappy little house in a neighborhood that had a good school. Such is the LA parent dance.

    But I think that every Westside liberal (there's a lot of them) would fight your initiative tooth and nail. They really enjoy exercising their right to send their kids Crossroads, Harvard - Westlake, Marlboro, etc. Keeps their kids from mixing with the hoi polloi.

    For my part, I don't think that right should be taken away from them, but the ability to explore options should be extended to those who don't make as much money or don't have the same contacts.

  • Tim Tebow||

    Exactly, right. Being home schooled totally screwed me over.

    I missed all that crappy public school clusterfark.

  • ||

    CHRISTIANIST! YOU....AND THAT WITCH PALIN!

    ....fuck me in the ass. Please.

  • moop||

    actually if those children learned a trade instead of being forced into school maybe they could get one of those $100,000 per year manufacturing jobs that are out there

  • ||

    Why would you want to live in such a world? Why would you want to create a world in which human intellectual achievement is restrained by the state?
    you want to limit people's ability to pursue education based on some silly devotion to artificial equality? How very progressive. Fuck you.

  • ||

    Normally "Tony" is spelled "Toni" for a woman's name.

  • ||

    Tony, has anyone ever told you you are a moron before? You think the public school system or this gov't cares about your children? They are creating little mindless robots out of your kids, and this is all by design. Wake the fk up!

  • ||

    "It should be illegal not to send children to public schools."

    Wow, so you're not only an idiot like everyone here calls you out for being, but now you reveal just how deep your inner-fascist handjobs your soul.

  • ||

    "It should be illegal not to send children to public schools. "

    So you're saying that Muslim parochial schools should be illegal, right?

    BTW, are you a parent?

  • ||

    Tony, the problem with the poor is that they have children, out of wedlock. They breed children who will follow their example and also drop out of school. You don't want Rush's listeners to run our country. Instead, the Democrats embrace two ethnic groups that have 72% and 50% out of wedlock birth rates, respectively. They live in areas where the high schools do not graduate the majority of their freshman enrollees. If you go to a Catholic school, you at least do not walk through a metal detector every day. The sociologists are now writing about the lack of "cultural capital" in the certain communities. It is not about money. Redistribution of income will not help anymore. Start reading some Charles Murray. He's been widely quoted everywhere- but you probably get your news from leftist news outlets - who just won't report this sort of thing.

  • ||

    I love how this mag is called reason yet there is very little quality reasoning going on. MaryOk is a good example of this deficiency in thinking and fact-checking. Btw MaryOK, Murray's poorly written book is about whites not the other "ethnicities".

  • ||

    And that's why your dumb.

  • hk||

    Dervish, Charter schools own the hell out of public schools statistically.

    I'm sorry the advanced stats are too hard for you to understand, but that's how we should measure everything.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'm sure you share my opinion that vastly improving national education standards and funding is the only plausible solution.

    And Chuck Spinney's Plans/Reality Mismatch completely flies over your head again.

  • NotSure||

    Nobody gives a shit, I guess all that outrage, the president giving her a call, people calling for the shutdown of a radio station etc. are your definitions of not giving a shit.

  • ||

    What's it like to be so thick?

  • oncogenesis||

    an entire political party is afraid to do a single thing to upset a morbidly obese shock jock

    Whose fault is that?!

  • RoboCain||

    And which political party is afraid of Rush?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Nobody gives a shit if someone uses insulting language."

    Then what the fuck just happened after Limbaugh called that woman a slut?

  • Ed Schultz||

    If Laura Fucking Ingraham thinks I was sincere in my apology...

  • ||

    Where are you hiding the evidence that an entire party is afraid to upset Limbaugh? I thought they tore into him pretty good, and rightfully so.

    Tony, you have to stop being so much like spoof Tony. None of us can tell the difference.

  • ||

    That's because there IS no difference. I personally think there is no Tony. Tony is a cyber bastard caused by anonbot's masturbating too close to the bisexual spam.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    That's really my gig.

  • poiut||

    If "nobody gives a shit", then why does it matter whether elected officials refute it or not? Especially considering that Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen making a remark about another private citizen.

    The reason for pointing out the other sides hypocrisies is to disrupt the narrative that one side is more anti-women than the other. Perfectly legitimate tactic.

  • Kochtopussy||

    Mildly scared? Try mildly amused. I'm shocked that the DNC is bored enough this week to make Rush Limbaugh the #1 story.

  • Jose Rodriguez||

    Goose stepping again Tony? Afraid to stand up to your leftist buddies?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tiny,

    What's utterly idiotic is the obsessive need of supposedly neutral observers to dredge up equivalencies whenever someone on Team Red does something bad.


    And viceversa - right, Tiny?

  • Tony||

    The Democratic party does not cower before Bill Maher or seek the blessing of Keith Olbermann before it allows itself to speak. Everyone says naughty things. Nobody gives a shit. The only absurdity here is Rush Limbaugh's power over a political party. Well, the other one is libertarians wasting valuable Internet space doing their usual false equivalency defense of him and the GOP.

  • RoboCain||

    No, they just cower before the dripping penis of their half-chocolate child god.

  • sloopyinca||

    The Democratic party does not cower before Bill Maher or seek the blessing of Keith Olbermann before it allows itself to speak.

    You're right. They high-five each other behind closed doors.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tiny,

    The Democratic party does not cower before Bill Maher or seek the blessing of Keith Olbermann before it allows itself to speak.


    But only because nobody cares about those two, Tiny. The Dems do circle the wagons around more important folks, like Harry "Negro Talk" Reid, for instance.

    Well, the other one is libertarians wasting valuable Internet space doing their usual false equivalency defense of him and the GOP.


    "Libertarians"???

    "Over at The New Republic, Timothy Noah..."

    "At The Daily Beast, Kirsten Powers[...]"

    Seems to me everybody is engaging this story. Only because you happen not to like the equivalencies does not mean a) they're a waste of time (because nobody cares about YOU) and b) they're not interesting.

  • ||

    Bill Clinton still gets a knobber just thinking about the Dems that went on the tank on Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. The Republicans have their own issues but they showed Nixon the door. Can anyone imagine Obama being shown the door? The Republicans have Reagan. Democrats believe every Democrat President is Reagan. Red and Blue suck. Blue just sucks more because the media lets them get away with it. Any parent of toddlers can figure this out.

  • ||

    I prefer green myself.

  • Michael Moore||

    I loved sitting next to President Carter at the Convention. We talked about how Bush was in on 9-11.

  • ||

    Are you a morbidly obese filmmaker, overweight fimmaker or just a filmmaker.

  • rob reiner||

    i resemble that remark

  • ||

    No, they don't cower before Bill Maher or that ratfuck Olbermann. They don't have as much money as we do here at Goldman.

    Here at Goldman, the Democratic Party sucks our Collective Cock!

  • ||

    dredge up equivalencies

    Actually i am wish ad hominin and hyperbole was better defended by all teams.

    Seriously good entertaining political criticism and discourse requires calling one another shit heads. We need more of this not less, and i am more then a little upset when some whiner asshole cry's over "mean" words.

    This time it is the left shedding the tears so this time they are the ones who suck ass.

    You are misconstruing the point of equivalencies. The left let other "mean" words fly...they need to shut the fuck up about these particular ones....cuz calling political activists sluts is just as pure awesome as voicing ones opinion that they want to hate fuck Palin and murder tea pirates.

  • ||

    Tony said:
    What's utterly idiotic is the obsessive need of supposedly neutral observers to dredge up equivalencies whenever someone on Team Red does something bad.

    Yes, and you're the poster child for even-handedness.

  • ||

    "The Team Red vs. Team Blue mentality is not idiotic, as it corresponds to real, huge issues in the world."

    Oh do tell. Speak to us of the vast gulf between the spendy drone-killery Wall Streety party and the other one.

  • Jim Treacher||

    It sure does suck when people point out your double standard, doesn't it? Poor Tony.

  • ||

    Dammit Jim! You just killed the Meme that Tony was trying to push.

    And here he was trying to push State Funded Contraception.

  • Yumber Lard||

    Have to agree! This is part of the struggle that determines how we all will freaking live... Well except for that second part. Team blue sucks. :D

  • ||

    Fluke became a public figure as soon as she stepped before the mic & camera.

  • Realist||

    But of course.

  • ||

    Well, as soon as she stepped before the mic & camera to advocate for the government to force private organizations to do something, yes.

    If someone steps up to say "No, this is private and should stay that way", I'm not so sure they have made themselves a legitimate target. They are arguing for privacy, after all.

    But someone who says "That is public, and should be determined by politicians using the mechanisms of the State", yup, a public figure.

  • ||

    I think courts have determined that, if you go public with anything - including beefs about remaining 'private' - you are now a public figure.

  • wondering||

    But what about if you keep private when you're beefing about remaining public? Does that insulate you?

  • R||

    That's what pseudonyms are for.

  • Joe the Plummer||

    Look how quick my ass got public!

    I asked the president a question when he was standing on my lawn, the next thing I know Slate has my medical records!

  • Tony||

    That was different. You had to be taken down. You were a threat. And whatever people said about you, was too good for you.

  • RoboCain||

    She chose to go to Georgetown Law with the specific intention of making their contraception policy a public issue.

  • ||

    A Jesuit school! How dare she! I would love to run into this bitch...on the street one day. Seriously, and then to get a call from the president along with a press conference bringing his daughters into the scam? How moronic do you have to be to fall for this set-up?
    It is really little to do with anything other than a ploy to distract us while HE, the chosen one, takes another step in fulfilling his goal of taking down this country. Soros and the other Bilderberg's must have promised him the crown and the thrown!

  • ||

    I would love to run into this bitch...on the street one day.

    Yes, beating up women is a great way to show your bonafides as a conservative "man"

  • Bill Clinton||

    I would hit it.

  • Joe M||

    But if Noah's catalog of rancid liberal misogyny is incomplete, is he right that Fluke isn't a public figure and hence not fair game?

    Joe the plumber.

  • ||

    If you're physically in America, you're essentially a public figure.

    If you are a 'private' citizen and you complain publically about any perceived invasion of privacy, you immediately become a public figure.

  • Granite Sentry||

    Good points, but it should tell you something about the supposed Manichean duality of these behaviors that one side, the Left, practices them so much more diligently and energetically, not to say with more natural verve and originality.

  • ||

    Rush and Maher are entertainers, not that I find either of them entertaining.

  • ||

    What it seems to come down to for me is, when the Left does it, it's justified because they're correct. When the Right does it, it's unjustifiable because it's WRONG WRONG WRONG. And that boils down to, nothing the Left does can ever be wrong; they all say so, and so it must be true. And, nothing the Right does can ever be right.

    Sadly, it's hard to argue with that. Argument requires at least some shred of logic, and there's none to be found here.

  • wareagle||

    that's what Nick said, but with more words.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It should ALWAYS be wrong to call a woman a cunt, no matter who says it.

    But try telling Bill Maher that.

  • Barack Obama||

    His money still spends like a dream.

  • ||

    You're going to have to give that money........hell, who am I kidding? The media has more squirrels to chase.

  • The Left||

    -It's not wrong when we do it
    -If our intentions are 'good', it's OK
    -The right/republicans/tea party are worse
    -Racist

  • k||

    your a moron

  • that's...||

    "moran"

  • ||

    Technically, that's "Congressman Moran"

  • ||

    Share with us when you have a concrete well thought out opinion of your own. And if you continue to throw up what you eat everyday, then you really should consult with a doctor, because your life is at stake, you total moron.

  • Coeus||

    It should ALWAYS be wrong to call a woman a cunt, no matter who says it.

    Let's not be too hasty here.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'm serious. I wouldn't even call Hillary that.

    It's not a PC thing, it's a threshold I choose not to cross. It just doesn't sit well with me, wordwise.

  • ||

    "I'm serious. I wouldn't even call Hillary that."

    I wouldn't either. But I do reserve the right to say such stuff about someone if I think it appropriate (which as yet to happen).

  • .||

    What it comes down to is that the Left's shit don't stink - or so they would have everyone believe.

  • ||

    Ah the short memories. Remember the Playboy story about 10 conservative women we'd like to hate f*ck? Good times, eh? Better buckle in folks, it's going to be a looooong election cycle.
    ~WAR

  • ||

    If you've ever needed a reason to rethink dumb attachments to the left-right, liberal-conservative Manicheanism at the heart of conventional politics, the sort of idiotic Team Red vs. Team Blue mentality underscored by Noah's need to exonerate the misogyny of his ideological allies should give you something to ponder.

    Every fucking thing partisans do every fucking day should give you something to ponder about the absolutely empty, banal, and integrity-free existence of partisans, and how utterly disgusting it is how many people join up to TEAMs as mindless sheep.

  • ||

    I just don't get people's willingness to defer their own judgment to that of political parties and their cheerleaders.

    Think for yourselves, people! Don't serve as the proxy of these venal idiots!

  • ||

    No, that's the point. Thinking for yourself is work, and you don't get to bask in the warm glow of TEAM camaraderie, or, in more accurate terms, the acceptance of the flock.

    Plus, knowing exactly who to hate is so much more convenient.

  • ||

    Hey, I'm stupid like you! Me, too! Let's be stupid together!

  • ||

    Sounds good to me, ProL.

  • ||

    Come on people now,
    Pile on your brother.
    Everybody get together,
    And try to out dumb each other right now.

  • ||

    It's catchy! I feel dumber already!

  • ||

    I'm dumbering too!

  • ||

    Dumb and dumberer!

  • ||

    A dumilemma.

  • ||

    I don't know if I can get behind the concept of dummitude.

  • ||

    Seriously, did Buffalo Springfield have the original lyrics to that?

  • ||

    Well played, boys. Well played.

  • Venal Idiot Proxy||

    Think for yourselves, people! Don't serve as the proxy of these venal idiots!

    Hey!

  • Brian||

    "You are all individuals!"

    "Yes! We are all individuals!"

    "I'm not."

    "Shhh!"

  • sloopyinca||

    Fluke, by her own admission, is an instigator. And while I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with her allowing the media to cast her as some helpless victim that must, must be soothed by our manly President.

    A real feminist would punch her in the face for being such a pussy that is too shit-scared to stand up for herself and call Limbaugh a dickhead.*

    *Of course, the leftist/feminists of today wanted to lynch Paula Jones but took Anita Hill's word as the gospel truth, pointing out that politics is more important that equality or strong feminine qualities.

  • Michelle Obama||

    "some helpless victim that must, must be soothed by our manly President."

    Oh, I don't think so!

  • Michelle Obama||

    Chris Matthews, get away from my husband!

  • Rachel Maddow||

    Y'know, you're not the only Obama that gives people leg-thrills...

  • Jose Rodriguez||

    The saddest part? Not the childish name calling. It's that she could have asked a congressional committee for anything, and chose to ask for contraception. Weak. But that is the state of political discourse in Amerika today. Idiots funding idiots pandering to more idiots.

  • Juice||

    Not really. The hearing was set up for someone to speak about contraception. If she hadn't done it, someone else would have.

  • ||

    The hearing was set up to examine yet another instance of Democrats shredding the constitution in pursuit of their socialist nirvana. Fluke's testimony was irrelevant, and so properly disallowed. So Dems, unwilling to allow their pre-staged dog and pony show to go unseen, set up their own little panel just to give the impression there was actually something going on there besides total hypocrisy and staged sham, and put the cameras on Ms. Fluke -- who then voluntarily made her statement about contraception apropros of pretty much nothing.

  • Sudden||

    A couple of points:

    1. If testifying before a congressional committee doesn't make one a public figure, what exactly does?

    2. Ms. Fluke testified to Congress petitioning for a non medically-necessary item for her which has a specific purpose to prevent pregnancy resulting from intercourse. Therefore, it is safe to assume that her desire to get this was resulting from her having an active sex life and she opened up to the public knowledge that she engages in intercourse. Rush's calling her a slut was in response to the fact that she volunteered in a public forum that she has sex to a degree that warrants the pill. None of the left's misogynistic comments and allusions to sexual activity appear to be a response to that sexual activity being publicly brandied about.

  • ||

    You don't have to be sleeping around to need birth control, dumbass. There are plenty of monogamous married couples that use contraception.

  • Sudden||

    I concur. My own wife uses the stuff. And I'm certainly not saying Rush's characterization of her as a slut was factually correct, but at the very least, he only brought her sexuality into the discussion because her sexuality is the raison d'etre for petitioning the govt to compel her University to provide birth control.

    The point I'm making is that her testimony was explicitly related to sexuality to one degree or another, so making a comment on her sexual habits (whether or not factually true) is an expected response. Meanwhile, the left repeatedly makes sexual obscene statements regarding female figures on the right who have not publicly acknowledged their sexuality in any capacity the way Fluke has.

  • RoboCain||

    Fair enough.

  • ||

    he only brought her sexuality into the discussion because her sexuality is the raison d'etre for petitioning the govt to compel her University to provide birth control.

    The vast majority of people are sexually active. I don't think that opens them up to being called "slut", do you?

    I mean, everyone in the world defecates, does that mean it's appropriate for Rush to speculate about the turgidity and frequency of my bowel movements on the air?

  • Joe||

    If those people testified before congress about the need to have their baby wipes and toilet paper paid for by their employer and/or taxpayers then maybe.

  • ||

    What Joe said.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What Kant said about what Joe said.

  • Paul||

    The vast majority of people are sexually active

    What?

  • ||

    my bowel movements on the air

    Good God, what kind of shits do you produce, exactly? Talk about "floaters"!

    /goofy misplaced modifier joke

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    ^^^Grammar nerd.

  • James T. Kirk||

    Who wants to see the Captain's Log?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    You don't have to be sleeping around to need birth control, dumbass.


    Well, going by the melodramatic nature of Ms. Fluke's testimomy, one would almost think she's talking about obtaining a treatment for cancer.

  • sloopyinca||

    He never said "sleep around," Tulpa. And if her situation was one where she needed ot for non-intercourse purposes, don't you think she would have brought it up? It certainly would have made her a more sympathetic figure.

  • Tony||

    She did.

  • sloopyinca||

    [citation required]

  • Sudden||

    She brought up her friend who needed it. Of course, she never addressed whether the myriad of other treatments for ovarian cysts were covered through her uni's insurance, because she doesn't care about that, she cares about getting hers (no pun intended).

  • sloopyinca||

    She brought up her friend who needed it.

    She should be required to produce her "friend" or face perjury charges for lying to a Congressional Committee, because that story smells like shit to me.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    she never addressed whether the myriad of other treatments for ovarian cysts were covered

    If birth control pills are medically necessary to treat a condition, the Catholic Church has no objection to their use. I imagine that if Fluke's gal-pals needed those pills because other treatments were ineffective, their plan would pay for them.

  • ||

    No, she said some people needed it for reasons other than indulging their hobby. She didn't say she did.

  • ||

    He's trying to justify calling someone a "slut". Do you know what that word means?

    If you're confused about whether a faithfully married woman can properly be called a slut...you have some vocabulary cramming to do before your wedding, son.

  • nicole||

    +1

  • ||

    She is married?

  • ||

    No, but for all we know she's in a monogamous relationship.

    And the original commenter was claiming that using birth control means you're a slut.

  • beefonrocks||

    for all we know she is a paid plant by planned parenthood.

  • hk||

    I don't give a shit if she's married or not, I'm not paying for her lifestyle.

  • ||

    My wife seems to like it if I also pull her hair. :^)

  • Paul||

    There are plenty of monogamous married couples that use contraception.

    After seeing other people's children, I wish there were more using it.

  • ||

    And? Does that mean I should have to pay for theirs too? I think you are missing the point. I don't care what her medical condition warrants or yours for that matter. I should not be forced to pay for it, for God's sake!! This is a ridiculous distraction to paint Conservative Republicans as uncaring about woman. Plain and simple. The transparency is almost blinding and yet there are so many dumbasses, to use your term....like you, who have fallen for this...hook line and sinker. Idiot!

  • ||

    But your point #1 is correct.

  • Fluffy||

    None of the left's misogynistic comments and allusions to sexual activity appear to be a response to that sexual activity being publicly brandied about.

    In a sense that makes it much, much worse.

    If I call Michelle Malkin a worthless cunt whore, that's really just "insert generic insult". It's a placeholder for "I want to say a bad thing about Malkin". I may as well call her a douche, when you get right down to it.

    Calling someone a slut and thinking you have a valid reason for choosing that particular term is actually much, much more personal and much more insulting.

    If it's 1998 and I walk up to Newt and Callista on some clandestine date in a Washington restaurant and I say, "Newt, you're such a political whore!" it's just me and him messing around. If I say, "Callista, you're a homewrecking whore!" there's gonna be a fight, if Newt isn't a huge pussy.

  • ||

    If I call Michelle Malkin a worthless cunt whore, that's really just "insert generic insult".

    ...and the fact you chose that particular insult shows more about you and your maturity level than about Malkin.

    If it's 1998 and I walk up to Newt and Callista on some clandestine date in a Washington restaurant and I say, "Newt, you're such a political whore!" it's just me and him messing around. If I say, "Callista, you're a homewrecking whore!" there's gonna be a fight, if Newt isn't a huge pussy.

    That's a pretty horrid analogy. "political whore" and "homewrecking whore" already have very different levels of meaning regardless of what your internal thought process is.

    Also, apparently your belief in the NAP goes in and out if you think force is justified in response to insults of one's wife.

  • Fluffy||

    ...and the fact you chose that particular insult shows more about you and your maturity level than about Malkin.

    I hate that racist cunt and I like to use that particular insult, in the hope that she uses Google Alerts and maybe someday will see it.

    And know that I am challenging her to a fight. :-)

  • ||

    LOL@challenge her to a fight! YOU don't have what it takes. You sound like an immature child with no clear thinking process of your own. Maybe when you grow up, but in the meantime, if you think Michelle has not heard it all, and more so if you think she cares, you are an even bigger morn than you sound in your post above.

  • ||

    "I like to use that particular insult because I am 11 and think bad words are kewl"

  • sloopyinca||

    there's gonna be a fight, if Newt isn't a huge pussy.

    Don't worry. You're safe.

  • Sudden||

    In a sense that makes it much, much worse.

    In that case, his comments should be just as innocuous as the Taibbi rants, since we are to believe that what he said is factually untrue and that Ms. Fluke is simply a responsible and relatively monogamous woman who wishes to engage in sexual activity with her SO without fear of pregnancy.

    So it's either as innocuous a Taibbi's "hairy balls in Malkin's mouth" comments.

    Or it's fucking true, in which case, why is pointing out the truth such an offense?

  • nicole||

    Or, it's exactly like what Fluffy said: He's "[c]alling someone a slut and thinking [he has] a valid reason for choosing that particular term." Maybe you don't think that's what he's doing, but it's clearly a possibility and, given the pure idiocy of many of his remarks (not understanding how the pill works), I think pretty likely.

  • ||

    I don't recall Taibbi's disgusting insult of MM making it to the evening news? Hmmm...how did I ever miss that??

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It was a photo-op, Sudden. It wasn't a Congressional hearing.

  • Monty||

    ^^^^Moar This^^^^

  • Jeffersonian||

    It wasn't even a congressional committee. It was a Democrat setup made to look like a committee meeting. Fluke was a last-minute substitution that Issa, the committee chairman, refused, so the D's just hald court on their own after the committee adjourned.

  • rho||

    When you ascend to the summit of Morality Mountain, you pass many corpses.

    The only way to avoid being one is to stay at base camp and drink with the sherpas.

  • Fluffy||

    I always discounted the outrage directed at Limbaugh on Fluke's personal behalf.

    In personal terms, he did her a favor. She's a political activist, and he made it nationally famous. She should send him a fruit basket.

    I was annoyed at Rush because I thought it was a stupid argument to make in the context of the mandate discussion. I was offended by Rush because he said that any woman who is on the Pill is a slut, which means that Rush called my wife and the mother of my children a slut. And if he did that to her face, I would go out to my car, get the tire iron out of the donut kit, and do my damnedest to fuck him up with it.

  • Zeke||

    Non-aggression principle much? Perhaps tell him to leave?

  • ||

    I think Fluffy was being hyperbolic, dude. Try to go with the flow.

  • ||

    OK, in that case all the partisans you're complaining about above were "being hyperbolic" when they made hypocritical remarks too.

    Or does that excuse only apply to people who you agree with?

  • ||

    Tulpy-Poo, you know I won't play with you when you're extra itchy. Go hump Fluffy's leg some more if you need to work off some bitchiness, but don't bother me.

  • ||

    Look who has an insult in place of an argument.

  • ||

    You say that as if it were your first day here.

  • ||

    It ain't Epi's first day here either, but on the rare occasion he makes an argument I actually attempt to address it without insulting him. It's what adults do.

  • ||

    And if he did that to her face, I would go out to my car, get the tire iron out of the donut kit, and do my damnedest to fuck him up with it.

    So much for the non-initiation of force principle, eh?

  • Fluffy||

    Yup.

    I'm just trying to explain to you why people were offended by Rush's statement.

  • ||

    Nice dodge. By "yup", do you mean you don't care about the NAP in that situation?

    Or are you claiming that "I" in that comment was referring to someone other than yourself?

  • Fluffy||

    It would be really stupid to talk about the NAP, since rho was apparently the first of you fuckwads to be smart enough to realize that I wouldn't actually do that.

    The point of my post was that if any of you has a spouse who has ever taken the Pill, if you failed to realize that Rush was calling your wife a slut, it's because you're fucking stupid and ghey.

  • ||

    You mean, rho was the first one to call you out for being a NetTuff?

  • Fluffy||

    Yes.

    The social convention in recounting a hypothetical incident such as the one in question makes a rhetorical flourish asserting a willingness to use violence hyperbole that's meant to communicate how offended and angry I would be.

  • ||

    So when I go to Walmart and tell them if they ever sell me a TV with a cracked screen again I'm going to beat them all up with a crowbar, that's socially understood to just communicate that I'm just angry?

    I don't know which society you live in, but I don't think that's gonna fly in the one I live in.

  • ||

    And you said it twice. You said that you would beat Newt up with a tire iron for insulting your wife, AND you said that if Newt didn't start a fight if someone called Callista a homewrecking whore then he was a pussy. So, is the NAP for pussies or what?

  • Fluffy||

    If someone walks up to you and says, "I challenge you to a fight, right here and now!" are you breaking the NAP if you say, "OK, sure!" and leap up and fight?

  • ||

    Not even remotely the same situation. The person in that situation is consenting to having force used upon them.

  • Fluffy||

    What I'm saying is that there are times when it is the same situation.

    And the people in the situation know that it is.

  • ||

    So there's never been a case where someone's just fucking around talking trash, with no intention of starting a fight, and the object of their insults misinterprets this as an attempt to start a fight?

    Sorry, that's bullshit. You're question-begging up the wazoo, though devotion to natural law requires lots of question begging so I should forgive.

  • Fluffy||

    So there's never been a case where someone's just fucking around talking trash, with no intention of starting a fight, and the object of their insults misinterprets this as an attempt to start a fight?

    Of course there are such cases. And if you guess wrong, you're morally in the wrong.

    Certainly you can acknowledge that there are times when the person is in fact trying to challenge you? Right? So say you guess right and fight the person who was in fact specifically attempting to get you to fight. Are you morally in the wrong? Did you violate the NAP?

    Fuck how you know. Say you flipped a coin. But the coin flap just so happened to correspond to the person's actual mental state and actual intent and you got lucky and fought the guy who did want to fight. Are you morally right, or wrong?

  • ||

    I would say yes, for the same reason that putting on a blindfold and spinning around a public park firing a machine gun violates the NAP, even if none of your bullets actually hit anyone. If there's a strong likelihood that your actions will violate someone's rights, and no plausible way for you to know beforehand whether they will, then these actions are inconsistent with the NAP.

    There are times when a woman pretends she doesn't want to have sex when she really does. I don't give a shit, though; if consent isn't communicated in some clear way (not necessarily verbally), and you have sex with her, then you've committed rape as far as I'm concerned. I don't care whether she wanted it or not...if you had no way of knowing, you committed rape.

  • hk||

    If the woman consents to that kind of behavior then you are incorrect.

    In your park example, I doubt the park owners and surrounding buildings/people would be ok with your actions.

  • robc||

    IM not sure calling someone's wife a slut to her face isnt an initiation of force.

    It gets into the whole "fightin words" concept and all.

    I guess it depends on if you value concepts like "honor" or not.

  • ||

    This is the part of the game where the natural law libertarians redefine "force" to include everything they don't like, so they don't have to deal with uncomfortable consequences of their philosophy.

    Please, give a definition of force that includes verbal insults.

  • robc||

    I just did. "Fightin words". Its a fairly accepted common law concept.

  • ||

    ROFL.

    So you're dragging the entire crazy quilt of common law into your "natural law" framework now? Kind of ruins the idea of starting from first principles, no?

    Common law had provisions for slaveholding, asset forfeiture, etc.

  • robc||

    Who says I have a "natural law" framework?

    I cite natural law, common law, whatever, as I see fit. Including Gödel, when necessary (this is not one of those cases - I find no contradiction at all with considering assault to be force). Hell, I support a Single Land Tax. I dont think that comes from natural law. But I find most natural law property arguments to be bullshit -- I prefer Mises on property. My paraphrase, "Might makes right until NOW (whichever point in history we declare NOW to be, apparently sometime after Andrew Jackson here in the US), then from that point on we will follow some sort of property law".

  • ||

    Or Tulpa's just being a cunt tonight.

  • ||

    Does that make you want to fight, sweetie?

  • ||

    You guys realize you are allowing yourself to be lectured about proper initiation of force by someone who thinks it's OK for a cop to taser a guy to death because he parked his car wrong, right?

  • ||

    So we've got Epi with insults in response to rational argumentation, and SF with misrepresentation of an argument from months ago, so complete a misrepresentation that he's either a total moron or intentionally trying to mislead. In other news, the sun came up in the east today.

    For new readers, the situation in question was a guy who had crashed on the freeway and whose car was blocking traffic and refused to get out so that his vehicle could be removed from the roadway. A cop tased him ONCE and due to an unusual medical condition he wound up dying as a result.

    To characterize that situation as "tasing a guy to death because he parked wrong" is the work of a moron or a deceiver.

  • robc||

    Or, definition 2:

    If the verbal insult causes a mass to accelerate, it is force.

  • robc||

    Or, thirdly, its the difference between assault and battery.

    Assault can be merely verbal, battery requires a physical element. Both are use of force.

  • hk||

    Wrong, words are just words. If you have some kind of mental disorder then it becomes an issue.

    Also yelling may violate someone's environmental regulation. Aside from that

  • hk||

    Aside from that you sound like a censor. I'm allowed to use hyperbolic language in this country whether you like it or not.

  • Fluffy||

    Here's how I'd parse the issue morally:

    I actually will answer my own question from above and say that if someone specifically challenges you to a fight, it doesn't break the NAP if you oblige them. BUT you should still be subject to arrest for it, because public brawling is an offense against public order and not just against the person you're in a fight with.

    And that there are certain contexts where the delivery of particular insults is known by all parties to be serving the function of a challenge to fight.

    If I walked up and called Callista a whore, in my own mind the reason I'd be doing it would be to slap Newt in the face. I couldn't be issuing more of a challenge than if I sent him a letter asking him to choose a second.

  • Fluffy||

    So if Rush got in my face and called my wife a slut, depending on his manner I'd consider it effectively a challenge and I'd feel morally entitled to fight - but I'd still expect to get arrested, because it would be legally wrong of me to do it.

    How would I know if it was a challenge or not? I'd just know. You'd know, too. I'm sure you have had times in your life when you knew that a person insulting you was doing it because they wanted to fight, and wanted to see what you'd do. You just know.

  • ||

    I'd just know. You'd know, too.

    That's bull. You're kissing goodbye to the rule of law with that.

    And saying that you would be justified in doing it but should still be arrested is likewise bull. Because it means that you think the state has the power to arrest people for doing things that are not initiation of force. Slaver.

  • Fluffy||

    Because it means that you think the state has the power to arrest people for doing things that are not initiation of force.

    It's an epistemological issue.

    There would be times when I would be completely confident that I knew I was being purposefully challenged - but it would not be reasonable to expect the state or a jury of my peers to know that.

  • robc||

    That's bull. You're kissing goodbye to the rule of law with that.

    Roughly the same type standard is used for deadly force. I have to "feel" my life is in danger. Or is pulling a knife on me not actually initiating force because you havent yet plunged it into my chest?

  • robc||

    "I was verbally assaulted" is a defense to charges of battery. You might be arrested, but you should win, if you properly parsed the person's intent.

  • ||

    And how are you going to legally distinguish between challenges to fights and mere verbal outbursts?

    More importantly -- how does the person the insult is directed toward know whether retaliatory force is justified at that moment? Do they have to read your mind?

  • Fluffy||

    I anticipated both these questions and answered them at 6:21. The 900 character limit and all.

  • ||

    No you didn't.

  • Fluffy||

    And how are you going to legally distinguish between challenges to fights and mere verbal outbursts?

    I answered that you can't legally distinguish. You'd be legally in the wrong. But the NAP is not a legal concept, it's a moral concept.

    how does the person the insult is directed toward know whether retaliatory force is justified at that moment? Do they have to read your mind?

    They have to tell from the totality of the situation. And maybe they'd be wrong sometimes. When wrong, they'd be morally in the wrong. When right, they'd be right.

  • robc||

    As I pointed out above, exactly like the use of deadly force.

    Its interesting the difference between protecting myself and protecting others with deadly force, at least in KY.

    Lets take a hypothetical: You pull a very realistic fake gun on me. I fear for my life and shoot you first, even though my life was never really in danger. Guess what, tough titties, I was justified* in my action.

    Scenario 2: I come upon you with a gun pulled on a stranger. I attempt to defend them. If it turns out you are robbing them or whatever, Im justified*. If, on the other hand, you are goofing around and, say, rehearsing a play, Im boned legally. When defending someone else, you damn well better be right.

    *legally, but IMO morally too

  • ||

    Sorry, but you guys suck at analogies. The scenarios are different in many ways other than the way you're trying to exploit. Iron rule of scientific experimentation: change ONE THING from one trial to another. Not 20.

    Scenario 2 should have been, you come upon a guy who pulls out a fake gun on a stranger and you shoot the guy with the fake gun. In this case, you probably would be justified, no?

  • robc||

    Scenario 2 should have been, you come upon a guy who pulls out a fake gun on a stranger and you shoot the guy with the fake gun. In this case, you probably would be justified, no?

    That was my original scenario 2, but I changed it because Im not 100% certain. I think you are still boned, but not sure. The way the KY law was taught to me, you have to be right about the threat to the other person.

    Does that mean the other person has to believe the threat or that the threat must be real? Not sure, actually, hence me changing my analogy.

  • robc||

    I looked it up, the relevant passage:

    Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.

    "actually exist" is kinda vague. Does that mean that we all know its a fake gun?

  • robc||

    Also, point 2:

    The analogy ended after the first sentence of my 6:42 post, the rest was just an interesting aside that has nothing to do with the fightin words argument.

  • robc||

    As an aside, this is bullshit:

    Iron rule of scientific experimentation: change ONE THING from one trial to another. Not 20.

    Experimental design techniques are all about testing across multiple variables simultaneously. Arent you a math professor? How the fuck can you not know that?

    I recommend "Design and Analysis of Experiments" by Douglas C Montgomery, that was the textbook in my Experimental Design class.

  • ||

    Math professors don't have labs, I'm afraid. But at the very least you have to maintain tight control over the shit you're changing.

  • ||

    But the NAP is not a legal concept, it's a moral concept.

    So you don't think the laws should be based on the NAP? In other words, you think it's perfectly OK for the state to punish people for an act that does not initiate force?

  • ||

    If someone says that to my wife's face in a hateful fashion, and in my presence, and they expect to get away with that, they just made a horrible mistake.

    But it's one they will quickly learn to never make again. In a sense, I will be doing them a favor.

  • hk||

    And you will go to jail.

    You're allowed to insult him back or call him ugly or a fucking pussy.

    Etc.

  • hk||

    He hurt your feelings not your fucking body.

    Also what if he said something mildly offensive to most, and very offensive to you? What if you're very religious and/or easily offensive? Sorry you're fucked.

  • hk||

    *easily offended

  • rho||

    And if he did that to her face, I would go out to my car, get the tire iron out of the donut kit, and do my damnedest to fuck him up with it.

    No you wouldn't.

  • Fluffy||

    Yeah, probably not.

    I should, but I probably wouldn't.

  • ||

    If you think you should, then you don't believe in the NAP.

  • robc||

    Not necessarily true. See my post above.

    Verbal abuse can, in theory, be an initiation of force.

  • ||

    When you're dealing with natural law devotees desperate to have their pet peeves grandfathered into their philosophy, of course it can.

    If you're allowed to creatively define "force", you could craft a natural law case for socialism.

  • Xenocles||

    It's the "got in my face" part that's confusing things. Would you track down a someone if he called your wife a slut in a blog post? I wouldn't - those are just words. But someone stepping into my personal space to say something hostile might just have his actions interpreted as a physical threat, and I might react accordingly.

  • ||

    You're kind of moving the goalposts here. Most insults are not threats, in person or otherwise.

  • Sudden||

    I was offended by Rush because he said that any woman who is on the Pill is a slut

    I'm sorry, I just don't see the evidence for making this particular leap. Nowhere in his statements did he insinuate that anyone taking the pill is a slut, he referred specifically to Fluke, and even there he framed the whole monologue in more of a hypothetical framework. Your inference that he intended to call every woman on the pill a slut doesn't find any merit in the actual comments he made.

  • Fluffy||

    That's exactly what he did.

    He said "These women" in the plural repeatedly.

  • Fluffy||

    And there's no other inference to make.

    That's the problem with not criticizing Fluke as a moocher, but instead choosing to criticize her as a slut.

    If you criticize her for being a moocher, then your criticism is limited to those women who want the state to force insurance companies to pay for the Pill.

    If you criticize her because you say that since she's on the Pill it means she's a slut, then it is logically necessary that you are criticizing all women who take the Pill as sluts.

    Rush had no information about Fluke's sex life other than the fact that she bought the Pill. That's it. He can't perform any inductive reasoning up from that one fact that does not similarly accuse every other woman for whom that one fact is true.

  • Sudden||

    She claimed that she HAS to spend $1000/year on birth control. He, in the fashion of a rational actor in the marketplace, mentioned that there are one-off forms of protection such as condoms which cost all of $1 a pop. And therefore, he suggested that if that inflated $~80/month is prohibitively expensive, she could consider condoms. If that still runs her $~80/month, than his choice of words could be considered a dramatic understatement of fact.

  • ||

    Actually what he said was "if you have to be paid to have sex, it makes you a slut." So in a roundabout way it *was* a criticism for mooching, not for taking the Pill as such.

  • Fluffy||

    That was only part of his statement. He went on and on at some length that admitting that she was on the Pill meant that she was having lots of sex at Georgetown and had boyfriends lined up around the block.

  • Naomi||

    No, he called educated independent women sluts.

  • RoboCain||

    Then they should have their own money.

  • Sudden||

    Nothing screams independence like depending upon the state to subsidize or coerce subsidy of one's own sexual proclivities.

  • ||

    It's much easier to ask Congress to pay for your birth control than it is to ask your boyfriend.

  • Libertarian2||

    Did you guys read the bloody article? She wants the SCHOOL to buy her pills.

  • ||

    Allow me to issue a correction. It's much easier to ask Congress to make some third party buy your birth control than it is to ask your boyfriend.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Educated, independent women would buy their own damned birth control, not whine to Daddy Government to make someone but if for them.

  • Naomi||

    WOMYNS HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT

  • RoboCain||

    Obvious troll is now obvious.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Where is this "right" codified? I have several copies of the Constitution. Which page is it on? Hell, I've read 'em all, Naomi... every page. Where did I miss this?

  • RoboCain||

    >implying Rush eats fruit

  • Paul||

    In personal terms, he did her a favor. She's a political activist, and he made it nationally famous. She should send him a fruit basket.

    This. Think about it, people. You're an activist who signs up to go to a college, and pays tuition for three years just to get an inexpensive medication coverage mandate. This is a dedication to political activism which should give anyone pause.

    Then [insert major opposition political pundit here] starts naming you regularly as an enemy of everything they hold dear.

    You just got an invite to every fucking cocktail party across the country attendted by important VIPs for your cause.

    And if he did that to her face, I would go out to my car, get the tire iron out of the donut kit, and do my damnedest to fuck him up with it.

    What, no bowstick skills?

  • nicole||

    +1,000 for Fluffy. (I'd be squeamish if my man abandoned the NAP for such, but surely a part of me would want him to. The part you don't listen to, of course.)

  • shamalamadingdong||

    "... I was offended by Rush because he said that any woman who is on the Pill is a slut...

    I admit that I quit listening to Rush a few years ago because his schtick had worn thin, but did he really say "ANY" woman who takes the pill is a slut?

  • ||

    Of course he didn't. I can't quote word for word, but effectively he said, if you're having so much sex that you go BROKE buying contraception - $1000 a year (how many condoms is that?) then you're a slut. Slut means 'promiscuous', right? I know young men who have *prided* themselves on being sluts, because it meant they were getting lots of sex with lots of partners. It's not the pill-taking, it's the needing so much contraception that you go broke and have go to begging to Congress to force your college to provide something they have NEVER provided, just because you happen to want it.

  • hk||

    Indeed, this is correct.

  • Neko||

    Rush didn't say all women who use birth control are sluts, he said that a woman who uses birth control and demands that someone else pay for it is a slut. Big difference.

  • ||

    "any woman who is on the Pill is a slut"?! Really? That's what people carried away from his rant? Not that $1,000 a year indicates a greater-than-normal use of contraceptives (other sites have done the math... but if somebody wants to run some numbers, feel free).
    If you wife had just admitted to the world that she was banging 3 times/day every day (if it's less, let's see the numbers) and couldn't be arsed to ask any of her partners to pick up the cost of a condom, would you still be just as defensive?
    Obviously if somebody walked up to your wife, asked if she used the pill and if she said "yes" they called her a slut you would be pissed. That scenario has NOTHING to do with the Fluke story (regardless of calling her a slut was right, wrong, neutral).

    Silly display of poorly applied machismo.

  • ||

    He never said that any woman on the pill is a slut!!! He never said that. He called Fluke a slut. Was he wrong? I think a slut is a common well-known term to describe a woman or a man as one who engages in sex with many partners. This woman is a self admitted slut. Why was it wrong of Rush who is known for his crassness to call her what she is?? More to this point, would be why was it ok for the late night talk show hosts to do it? Because they are such comedians ? Yuck yuck yuck?? There is a clear double standard and this is nothing new. Until right leaning talk radio and sites like Breitbarts and Levin and Beck become stronger and take the lead from these liberal media groups ... unfortunately, it is simply the way it will remain.

  • ||

    Most of the women I know are offended by the word c*nt being used to describe ANY woman. Are you certain that your wife and children are not imaginary?

  • ||

    Lol. I'm trying to picture an angry tire-iron-wielding-dad named "Fluffy."

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    This is all so stupid and undeserving of the digitial ink being spilled upon it. Calling Fluke a slut is beyond the pale, period. It is disgraceful. What more needs to be said? Whether Maher or other leftists have disgraced themselves to an equal degree (they have) is really beside the point and does not justify Limbaugh's comments. Fluke is a confused young woman who substantive argument is so weak that the left is dying to keep the focus on Rush, and all this attention merely aids their diversion.

  • Zeke||

    I think the point was two-fold: Stop calling women names and the realization that it is all political in nature.

  • ||

    They're trying to tar the right with Rush's behavior, so it's totally fair game to tar them with leftie blowhard behavior.

  • Tony||

    Also, Nancy Pelosi is a shrill harpy whose lack of fuckability at age 71 makes her a valid target for ridicule.

    Yeah this is about who wins the women's vote. I wish the right all the best luck.

  • ||

    Got it in one sentence.

    Also, something about motes and beams.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    For me - and I love older women - it's not about what Pelosi LOOKS like... Pelosi could be as beautiful as Halle Berry, and I *still* wouldn't fuck her.

    Okay, my cutoff is usually around the age of 60, but I've gone beyond that once or twice. I just digs me some older chicks sometimes, yo.

  • ||

    I for one do NOT believe Rush's comments were justified. I was listening that day, and I turned the radio off - and every time it came up again the next two days.

    But 'tu quoque' is still a fair rebuttal. Why is he to be crucified for his speech, but others who do the same thing garner laughter, nods, praise, or just being ignored? If it's bad, it's bad. Treat it ALL as equally bad, or shut up about the guy you happen not to agree with when *he* does it. One does not help one's argument by trying to flay one guy alive and patting his brother-in-offense on the back.

  • ||

    There's so much bullshit and hypocrisy in these kinds of flare-ups that I don't know how people keep their arguments straight.

    I don't really care what some shock jock--which is what Limbaugh really is--says. It hurts his credibility to say such things, as it does with the leftish types who say similar things about their enemies, but he's not in the credibility business.

    What I find truly puzzling is the left's recurrent elevation of Limbaugh to being a proxy for the right or the GOP itself. Is it because he's so reviled by people on the left? Does making him the focal point help rally the forces? After all, he's going to say something provocative and out of line--that's almost guaranteed.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    T, you have to admit that Rush IS a force in the Republican party. Many Republicans such as my father in law (an otherwise decent guy) totally buy into the culture war BS, and Rush is at the forefront of that conflict.

  • RoboCain||

    Well, didn't they do an album based on The Fountainhead?

  • Sudden||

    If Fluffy is to be believed, it's worse in this case because it's thought to be true by the person making the allegations. It's not as bad an insult when Schultz calls Coulter a right wing slut, because apparently he doesn't actually believe that she let Breitbart, Steyn, and Lowry run the train on her while Krauthammer fapped away "in the corner" (see what I did there for the NRO folks?).

    But that fact that Rush actually believes that Fluke may actually need the pill because of her multiple sexual partners, the very idea that the accusation may actually be perceived to be true, makes it verboten.

  • Sudden||

    How upside down the fucking world is when something is less offensive when it is merely invented and more offensive when it is surmised from available evidence. (in this case, the available evidence being that Ms. Fluke could find a reasonably effective prophylactic in the marketplace that would cost her significantly less unless her sexual activity made Sasha Grey blush).

  • ||

    Say, what happens if someone calls Sasha Grey a slut? Is that bad, too? Does it matter if the person in question is, in fact, wantonly promiscuous?

    I know we're all non-judgy these days, but I think I'm thinking these things even if I'm civil enough not to say them. Again, not at all endorsing what Limbaugh said, who is an over-the-top ass, for the most part.

  • Sudden||

    He is an over the top ass, and he cares more about ratings than issues. But having said that, I have no problem with what he said in this particular instance. It was all hypothetical (IF she needs to be paid to have sex, THEN she is a slut, etc.).

  • ||

    Yeah, well, I agree that it's much ado about very little. She wanted to spread some bullshit for her cause, and an attack dog humped her leg. Big surprise there.

  • Xenocles||

    No, Sasha Grey is a sex worker. A dirty, slutty sex worker.

  • ||

    Sleazy threaded comments failed to use contraception again, eh?

    The more I talk about this, the more the feigned indignation amuses me. I dismiss Limbaugh's idiotic comments already. What's the point in making an issue out of it except for political gain? Yet where's the substance to all of this?

  • RoboCain||

    Actually, Sasha Grey retired from porn.

  • ||

    Which of course means she's chaste now, aside from the occasional toilet licking or milk enema guzzling.

  • ||

    Say, what happens if someone calls Sasha Grey a slut? Is that bad, too? Does it matter if the person in question is, in fact, wantonly promiscuous?

    You could do a lot worse than not using lazy, incendiary epithets when talking about anyone, ever. If someone really is wantonly promiscuous there are more precise and less emotionally loaded words to use.

  • ||

    Say, what happens if someone calls Sasha Grey a slut? Is that bad, too? Does it matter if the person in question is, in fact, wantonly promiscuous?

    I know we're all non-judgy these days, but I think I'm thinking these things even if I'm civil enough not to say them. Again, not at all endorsing what Limbaugh said, who is an over-the-top ass, for the most part.

  • Fluffy||

    You're basically admitting over and over in this thread that YOU, TOO believe that if you know that a woman is taking the Pill, you can surmise from that evidence that she's a slut.

    So I suppose the people who believed that Rush was personally insulting everyone who has ever taken the Pill were correct. Because that's how YOU see it, too.

  • Sudden||

    A little word problem math for you:

    Ms. Fluke wants to have sex without fear of becoming pregnant. Her insurance plan does not cover the pill. According to her research, she can purchase the pill for an annual cost of $1000 (we'll assume the highly dubious accuracy of this for argument's sake). She can also purchase condoms with spermicidal lubricant for $1/piece that will also serve to protect against pregnancy. How many times day does Ms. Fluke need to have sex in order for the condom-buying approach to be considered a wash with the pill approach?

  • nicole||

    Depends on how you factor in the value of a better failure rate, the ability to control the administration yourself rather than rely on a partner, not to mention the other myriad benefits of taking the pill.

    Anyway, how many times per day are you allowed to have sex with your monogamous partner and not be called a slut?

  • ||

    As I'm sure you know, the pill doesn't protect against STDs. Depending on the nature of the strange you're getting, that may be a big disad for the pill.

  • ||

    For that matter, couldn't she use a Sponge? Those are good for several days each, as far as I know.

  • nicole||

    So I suppose the people who believed that Rush was personally insulting everyone who has ever taken the Pill were correct. Because that's how YOU see it, too.

    I've reached the same conclusion.

  • nicole||

    How upside down the fucking world is when something is less offensive when it is merely invented and more offensive when it is surmised from available evidence. (in this case, the available evidence being that Ms. Fluke could find a reasonably effective prophylactic in the marketplace that would cost her significantly less unless her sexual activity made Sasha Grey blush).

    That's not his "available evidence," not if you read what he said, and if it were it would be stupid because there's no perfect substitute for hormonal birth control methods.

    If you look at what he said, it's pretty clear what his available evidence was: she wants to take the pill. It's not upside-down at all for that to be more offensive when you could easily extrapolate exactly as Fluffy does and I do.

  • KMA Too||

    Linky:
    http://dailyrushbo.com/rush-wh.....lut-right/

    Holy crap...how the hell anyone could hear that and somehow come away with this bullshit idea that Rush is saying, "If you take the pill, then you're a slut!" is beyond understandable.

    See MDC's excellent argument.

  • Tony||

    No, Angela, it is not a fair rebuttal. Whatever we on the left say, is always totally justified.

    We, on the other hand, are never deserving of derision. We are pure and good, and everyone not like us is the exact opposite.

  • sloopyinca||

    Fluke is a confused young woman

    Damn, the woman is 30 fucking years old. When does she start being responsible for her own life and statements? (Right after I pay for her contraception, I guess)

  • robc||

    18.

  • ||

    The day she repudiates the liberal cause and becomes a libertarian or conservative enemy of all that's holy and good?

  • West Verginia||

    13

  • ||

    Calling Fluke a slut is beyond the pale, period.

    You have something against sluts?

    Cuz if you do then you are now THE enemy.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "But if Noah's catalog of rancid liberal misogyny is incomplete, is he right that Fluke isn't a public figure and hence not fair game?"

    Joe the Plumber wasn't a public figure either, but that sure didn't stop the leftists from jumping all over him.

  • ||

    ...or illegally investigating him in all kinds of government-eyes-only databases, or mocking him endlessly for his alleged lack of a plumber's license, or, or, or.

  • ||

    Joe the Plumber was, in fact, a public figure.

    How did you hear of him...?

  • Joe M||

    Well, yeah, and the same goes for Sandra Fluke.

  • ||

    In defamation law, there can be limits to a "public figure's" rights to bring a defamation action (actual malice, etc.). However, I seem to recall that making someone famous by the act of defamation itself does not make the plaintiff a public figure.

    This isn't a defamation action, so not sure how apt all of this is. I suppose one could argue that she injected herself into the public realm by testifying before Congress, but that's a deeper question than I can answer only following this whole mess superficially, at best.

  • ||

    The lawyers take over at this point.

  • ||

    How did I hear of him? Oh, he was in his private front yard, and then-candidate Obama wandered up and started talking to him, and Joe had the gall to ask him about redistributive policies. PUBLIC FIGURE! PUBLIC FIGURE!

  • ||

    Yeah, at the time that happened, I'd say not a public figure. Afterwards, I think he road the fame train for a while, so a different answer.

  • ||

    Right, well afterward, he made a right fool of himself. But he didn't go LOOKING for that first conversation. For contrast, Ms. Fluke tried to get herself jimmed in as a replacement for someone else on that Religious Liberties panel, was rejected for perfectly valid reasons (timing of application, and qualifications), and the uproar has not died down yet.

  • ||

    Tangled webs, all about.

  • Old Mexican||

    It's because there is no rapper or liberal or leftist commentator or talk-radio host or comedian who commands anything equivalent to the knuckle-dragging army of haters that Limbaugh leads on the right.


    "He's more wrong because he has more followers than the other morons."

    I'm not sure, but it kind of looks like an Argument from popularity... don't you think?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "It's OK when our guys do it because they have fewer fans/viewers."

  • ||

    Earth to right wing apologists: Bachmann, Clinton, Malkin are public figures. Sandra Fluke was a citizen testifying before Congress on a women's health issue. It's not nice to be nasty to anyone, but if the ordinary person cannot speak her mind about every day issues without being verbally destroyed, where the heck are we anyway? Afghanistan? The South in the sixties? Are women still fighting for the right to vote or something? Yes. This is the problem. Speak up and you will be destroyed - that was the message loud and clear. At least according to leading Republican talkers. See you guys in 2013, when you are standing out in a field somewhere with your hat in your hand, talking to yourselves.

  • ||

    Ann-Marie, you ignorant slut.

  • ||

    Ahahahah such an appropriate use of the meme.

  • sloopyinca||

  • ||

    Dude, I'm like the honey badger. I just don't give a shit.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Nastyass

  • ||

    Well played, sirrah...well played.

  • ||

    I wonder if even seeing that works for the younger viewers? The old bit with Dan and Jane works best if you were familiar with the "Point/Counterpoint" segment on 60 Minutes back in the 70s.

  • Xenocles||

    You absolutely can't use it without people flipping their shit. I dropped it on someone in a Facebook argument and our mutual friend - a woman who played hockey as a child - flipped out. I was caught completely by surprise seeing as it's a meme older than me.

  • Outstanding in my field||

    It's a date!

    P.S. Bring condoms.

  • Paul||

    Paid for by whom?

  • NotSure||

    Nice strawman there, she was not asking for the vote or even the right to take contraception, she was calling for the government to force others to give her free stuff, that is not heroic, it is actually rude and stupid.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ann-Marie Stillion,

    Bachmann, Clinton, Malkin are [right wing] public figures [and ergo not deserving of any respect as human beings whatsoever]. Sandra Fluke was a citizen [and left-wing darling] testifying before Congress on a women's health issue.


    There - MORE accurate to your sentiment.

  • ||

    Let's not forget the qualifier pretend testifying.

  • ||

    Speak up and you will be destroyed - that was the message loud and clear.

    Indeed. That is the message that the Alinskyites have been sending for decades now.

    And here's the thing about conflict: it is always fought at the lowest common denominator.

  • ||

    She was destroyed?

    There's no such thing as bad publicity.

  • ||

    Could harm her dating prospects--"I heard you're kind of sleazy."

  • ||

    You mean help, right? Oh, you said "sleazy", not "easy". Wait, why would "sleazy" not help too?

  • ||

    I stand corrected. She's going to have a very, very active sex life, even beyond what she may or may not have today. Perhaps she needs government-subsidized lubrication now, too?

    Have I now gone too far as well?

  • ||

    Perhaps she needs government-subsidized lubrication now, too?

    Please don't give them any ideas.

  • ||

    There's really no end to this, is there? I'm thinking maybe we shouldn't be paying for anything.

  • ||

    But the stairs to my house are crumbly. My children could fall and hurt themselves. Won't someone please pay a bricklayer for our preventive care? Don't you care about children?

  • sloopyinca||

    Sandra Fluke was a citizen testifying before Congress on a women's health issue.

    Why do you conflate her trying to get someone else to pay for something not medicallt necessary with a "women's health issue"?

    if the ordinary person cannot speak her mind about every day issues

    Then we should discount her testimony. I would prefer experts discuss major policy issues than ordinary people.

    where the heck are we anyway? Afghanistan?

    We sure are. Americans and Afghans dying daily over there thanks to our NPP-laureate.

    Speak up and you will be destroyed - that was the message loud and clear.

    Paging Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin, please.

    See you guys in 2013, when you are standing out in a field somewhere with your hat in your hand, talking to yourselves.

    And another leftist makes the mistake of confusing us for TEAM RED cheerleaders.

  • Fluffy||

    That's stupid.

    The entire claim that there's some kind of meaningful distinction between a private and a public figure is specious nonsense.

    Anyone who speaks is subject to hearing the speech of their fellow citizens in return. No one gets a free pass.

  • RoboCain||

    How is being called silly names "destroyed"?

  • R||

    No shit; if anything, Rush's comments basically guaranteed her at least fame, if not fortune, amongst the left as a whole. I doubt she'll be left wanting for employment opportunities amongst left-wing advocacy groups.

  • ||

    Exactly, R.

    I wish Rush would devote an entire show bashin' and dissin' ME:

    Bar slut: "Are you that guy on the TV news?"

    Me: "Gosh. Y-y-yes."

    Slut: *giggles*

    (Sorry -- I've never got beyond this point with a bar pick-up -- what happens next?)

  • ||

    This is feminist victimhood-speak. If someone criticizes you, you can just retreat into "how could you treat a poor lady that way?". Women like this oscillate between wanting to be treated like adults, then playing the child card when they don't like they way things are going.

  • WanT||

    As soon as you testify before congress, you cease to be a private citizen and become a public figure.

    How hard is this for people to understand?

  • ||

    She was bait. Rush should have seen this. If he hadn't called her a slut, we'd be seeing the same outrage at level 11 because someone would have had the audacity to look into her background to learn that she is a professional agitator, and we'd see the same "destroying a PRIVATE citizen" bullshit.

  • ||

    Speak up and you will be destroyed? Is she such a delicate flower that someone calling her a slut would destroy her? She wants to do battle with the Catholic Church, and she needs liberal men to protect her from being called a bad name? Is that what feminism is? Give me a break!

  • Jeffersonian||

    Get that brave feminist a fainting couch, she has the vapors!

  • F Hart||

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That wasn't Congressional testimony, Ann.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    Ann-Marie, your point is fairly weak. Fluke isn't just an ordinary citizen plucked off the sidewalk in Mayberry. She is an activist who enrolled at Georgetown specifically to challenge GU's policies on contraception.

    On the other hand Episiarch's answer was better, and yes I did get the reference to the SNL sketch.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Sandra Fluke was a citizen testifying before Congress on a women's health issue.

    What does contraception have to do with health care?

  • ||

    Pregnancy is a disease. Haven't you heard?

  • ||

    Riiiight, because being called a slut = destroyed. In case you didn't notice, in Afghanistan, she probably would have been killed if not locked up forever. That's what I call destroyed.

    As others have said before, testifying before congress makes you a public figure. Heck, even if you're not a public figure, what happened to freedom of speech? Shouldn't I be allowed to call whoever I want whatever I want?

  • NotSure||

    Bizarre that somebody who is allowed to assassinate people, can launch nuclear missiles and other such things is supposed to be afraid of a radio talkshow ???

  • RoboCain||

    "a somewhat more in-depth catalog of vagina dentata imagineering by liberal asshats"

    +9000

  • ||

    How does being, I don't know, a syndicated columnist such as Michelle Malkin, make it less fucked up that Matt Taibbi wants to put "a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth"?

    Because when you earn your bread in the public eye, "FUCK YOU SHITHEAD" is how people are allowed to say hello. Thems the rules. Don't like hearing about your shriveled flaccid prick every day from people who've never met you? Go stock shelves at WalMart.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Or don't enroll at a school with the express purpose of challenging their policies in public.

  • ||

    I had to go to my local wal-mart today and they were stocking shelves.....Sandra Fluke wasnt there.

  • Al from AL||

    Did Kirk Cameron say something again?

  • I'll put it as delicately.||

    It takes a certain amount of shamelessness to complain before congress about her difficulty in affording her recreational sex while at law school.

  • rho||

    We need another Iron Law: when the story becomes focussed on the reactions to the story, the original story is probably stupid?

    I'll defer to RC Dean here on the ruling.

  • ||

    Dude, you came up with it, so it's rho's Law. I like it.

  • rho||

    Let's keep it under a single bailiwick.

  • robc||

    already violated, joez law, for example.

  • ||

    What is RC paying you to try and keep it all under his control, whore?

  • ||

    Dude, the accepted term of art is "slut." Really, don't you keep apprised of current political thinking?

  • ||

    ProL, you ignorant whore.

  • ||

    No, no, no. Though prostitute is acceptable. Unless you're talking about the Fucking Steamroller.

  • ||

    ProL, you ignorant strumpet.

  • ||

    Strumpet? What are you, a Victorian?

  • ||

    ProL, you ignorant harlot?

  • ||

    Tart.

  • ||

    Vinegar douches bring a whole new level of meaning to "she's a little tart".

  • ||

    Totally forgot trollop.

  • rho||

    I don't want to be the sheriff of this lawless town.

  • robc||

    No one wants to be sheriff of libertopia. Which is a good thing.

  • ||

    Yeah, well, too late, buddy. You're Gary Cooper and we're coming for you.

  • ||

    The Iron Laws know no master. Indeed, we are all their servants.

    So let it be written, so let it be done.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I thought the same thing on the last post on this. It's like how is this still a story. I guess it's because it's Rush. Everyone needs their cred reinforced.

  • ||

    So the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a stupid story?

  • robc||

    Pretty much. Stupid band anyway.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "you're pretending to be serious thinkers or writers or commentators"

    Hammer meet nail. The demand for media is well beyond it's capacity to supply anything of quality. It's like if the NFL expanded to 5000 teams and and let anyone who could put on a helmet play. We would still watch it but it would suck like Sandra Fluke at spring break.

  • ||

  • NotSure||

    Speaking of sluts and prostitutes check out how the handle this in Ukraine.

    http://rt.com/news/femen-ukraine-tv-attack-933/

  • GILMORE||

    I'm at least glad no one on the left ever tried to characterize the Tea Party as, "people who like to dip their balls in other people's mouths".

    That would be just, like, totally juvenile and *untowardly offensive*. Imagine if children started using the expression!

  • RoboCain||

    Good point.

  • Leftist||

    Permitting attacks on imagined sexual proclivities for me, but not for thee.

  • Brian||

    Am I the only one who found Rush's rant pretty entertaining? And not for ironic reasons or anything. I thought it was a genuinely funny bit.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I think he was treating her testimony with all of the seriousness it deserved. It was never about about the girl it was about how stupid the idea was.

  • ||

    My initial reaction was that he was probably just going over the top to mock the silly argument she was making. While I don't care for him calling her a slut, even so (stuff like that is why I don't listen to him in the first place), it seemed like normal hyperbole.

  • Paul||

    Unfortunately the WHOLE FUCKING THING is a WIN-WIN for the left.

    Win #1: The left was able to fenagle a coverage mandate for an incidental, inexpensive and easily obtained drug with the most dubious of arguments. Imagine how easy it will be to get coverage mandates for the stuff that's actually expensive and harder to get?

    Win #2: The conversation has now shifted away from the issue at hand: Should the rest of your risk-pool be forced to pay for something that has nigh little to do with risk?

    Win #3: We're talking about Rush Limbaugh and some other lesser leftists-asshats and arguing about the meaning of the word "slut". What insurance mandate?

    God we libertarians suck.

    Wake up! The left got Plan Fucking B in a goddamned VENDING MACHINE, and we can't get a weed legalized!

  • The Left||

    Priorities, Paul. Besides, secretly, we hate stoners as much as Team Red does.

  • BoscoH||

    I think I speak for all Reason aficionados and supporters when I say that we are all quite proud of the giant, hairy balls that Nick Gillespie has tucked away in his eponymous leather jacket.

  • BakedPenguin||

    So calling her a "slut" was clearly in poor taste. What about "hot and othered"?

  • Simone de Beauvoir||

    Oui! "Hot and othered" eet eez!

  • Weigel||

    Somebody had to write it, and Noah drew the short straw.

  • Kay B. Day||

    Here's the totally slutty part. We should be talking about the First Amendment instead of having this sophistic war about what a pundit said. I'm not Catholic, but what the church decides is doctrine is the church's biz and not Obama's, the consummate trasher of the U.S. Constitution.

    Meanwhile, we have a prez and AG who think it's peachy to blow up U.S. citizens if they're even (a teeny bit) suspected of terrorism, a diktat in a 2,000 page health market bill written by lobbyists and a Dept. of Homeland Sec. that says they will now track people leaving the country (guilty of visa overstay--good luck with those numbers, Obama).

    We have a solar/alt/energy complex that's burned kazillions of tax dollars and a clampdown on natural resources that puts humans at the bottom of the ecosystem.

    Yet we natter about words connected to women's sexuality.

    We are so stupid it is frightening.

  • Netsurfer||

    Your point being ... ?

  • ||

    Although it's a better line of argument than "ZOMG the war on womens!", I don't think this is a First Amendment issue either. As an atheist with zero moral objections to contraception, I should have the same freedom to hire a woman without providing birth control coverage through insurance that the Catholic Church has. Which is one of the things which makes Obama's "exemption" so offensive.

  • Sudden||

    ^to infinity.

  • ||

    Just to be clear, I'm quite offended by the original mandate as well. But if it must be applied I'd rather it be done in a way that doesn't trample all over the First Amendment the way the exemption does.

  • ||

    The constitution gives special status to religious concerns. Sorry.

    Note that it also hampers religious concerns by barring the government from directly supporting religion. The govt can fund environmentalist propaganda up the wazoo but Catholic propaganda, no way.

  • Sudden||

    I have some leftist friends that believe the tax exempt status equates to govt funding (which requires that leftist logical leap that what is not taken is given).

  • Paul||

    (which requires that leftist logical leap that what is not taken is given).

    Tax cuts should be repealed!

  • ||

    The main problem with that argument is that they're not given tax exemption for being religious, but for not earning profits.

    That's sort of like saying that allowing churches to call the fire department when there's a fire is establishment of religion.

  • Lefty||

    Anything that prevents the establishment of the Total State as the only object of worship is establishment of religion.

  • R||

    The govt can fund environmentalist propaganda up the wazoo but [religious] propaganda, no way.

    There's a difference?

  • ||

    Well said, dude.

  • Peter||

    The power gap is partly what makes Rush's comments marginally worse than comments by Maher, et al on the left. Fluke was a nobody before while Limbaugh is a powerfully influential celebrity shock jock. It's what bullies do, pick on someone less than half their size (in this case smear someone, with a demeaning label, who nobody knew about before, so the public will have no other reference to her..."oh, wasn't that that slut" )and most people don't like bullies. Added to this was the severely atavistic charge that using birth control or having sex regularly makes you a slut.
    I don't like the comments by Maher or Hitchens either (who called the Dixie Chicks sluts), but the figures were known quantities, celebrities by that time themselves, whose identities with their other activities and accomplishments are already well-known to the public.

  • ||

    Yeah, he's a real bully. She's really suffering for this.

  • ||

    I don't know about Fluke, but a lot of people out there have probably been strangled from clutching their pearls so tightly.

  • Peter||

    The backlash has allowed her to take advantage of the opportunity. That doesn't change the roles they originally played in this scenario.
    Maher is also ungentlemanly but his targets tend to be known quantities beforehand. That doesn't make it okay, just *marginally* not as obnoxious as picking on a previous unknown.

  • ||

    Dude? That was precisely the role they originally played. She tried to get under conservative skins and he reacted.

    And seriously, when did criticism become bullying?

  • Peter||

    "roles", dahood, mean that the young woman in question was a relative nobody, while he is a powerfully influential shock jock. It's bullying when the power differences are severe and the attacks try to totally dismantle a person's sense of dignity. That goes beyond mere 'criticism.'

    Jeebus, whatever happenend to Hit and Run's sense of chivalry?

  • Maxxx||

    What dignity is there in demanding free shit?

    The "young" student is a 30 year old political provocateur that participated in a fraudulent psuedo congressional hearing.

    She was not "plucked out of obscurity" by Limbaugh.

  • Sevo||

    Peter|3.6.12 @ 7:01PM|#
    "Maher is also ungentlemanly but his targets tend to be known quantities beforehand. That doesn't make it okay, just *marginally* not as obnoxious as picking on a previous unknown."

    Uh, if your ball is 'close' to the cup, do you write down "4" and pick it up?
    What sort of 'margin' do you allow your fave propagandist?

  • Peter||

    I'm no fan of Maher. I really dislike him in fact. I just think there's a difference between picking on other celebrities and picking on a relative nobody. It's not a huge difference, in their respective tactics, so that's why I said it was *marginally* worse.
    Just because I'm in ideological agreement with Limbaugh on this particular point about forcing the government to provide for our interests; that doesn't mean I agree with how he handled this.

  • WanT||

    She was a nobody, but as soon as she testified before congress, she became a public figure.

  • ||

    And the meme begins to solidify.

  • NotSure||

    The real bully here is the government, like I mentioned already, it is the one that can assassinate people and wage war on faraway countries. The guy on the radio has no power whatsoever, the woman on the other is more than willing to use government power to get her way.

  • Peter||

    Totally agree that government office holders are much greater bullies than celebrity shock jocks. That's another point.

  • Sudden||

    Except of course that the Dixie Chicks or Sarah Palin never made the concerns of their vagina public knowledge by testifying about their vaginal yearnings before congress.

    When one testifies before congress asking for a product to be freely provided which has as the primary function allowing sex strictly for pleasure instead of reproduction, inevitably someone is going to make the leap from "sex for pleasure's sake" to "slut" (whether or not its an appropriate characterization).

  • Peter||

    Again, with the medieval attitude towards sexuality.
    P.S. I'm not a leftist - I'm a classical liberal who often votes libertarian, if I vote at all. I just don't particularly care for bullies who pick on nobody women or the attempts to link normal sexual activity with sluttiness.

  • ||

    You don't know much about the Medieval period, do you? There were several periods in English history (I'm less familiar w/ rest of Europe) when attempts were made at curbing sexuality (some vestigial remnants remain today, such as infant circumcision), but mostly, people did what they wanted to do, and people wanted to have sex. Considering the epidemic nature of STDs at the time, a little curbing doesn't seem so horrible. There were no antibiotics, no effective barrier methods (there were condoms, but they were more useful for making someone feel safe than be safe), and disease was absolutely rampant. A little prudery might have saved a lot of misery, and was the real reason many rulers imposed edicts against prostitution and infidelity.

    I suggest you read http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-H.....312600348. It’s amazingly enlightening.

  • Peter||

    I know enough to know that the church authorities could have you burned at the stake for sexual activity during the medieval period. But the precise period is really beside the point - it's a regressive, atavistic attitude. Maybe 1940's is better.

  • Sevo||

    Peter|3.6.12 @ 8:51PM|#
    "Maybe 1940's is better."

    Maybe you shouldn't post a lot of crap.

  • Peter||

    This from the guy who can't have a discussion without saying 'shithead' every other word. Why don't you grow up, somewhere, preferably offline where you won't embarrass yourself so much.

  • ||

    Is it too much to ask for a cite on that 'burned at the stake' claim? People were burned at the stake for a LOT of reasons in the Medieval period - being Catholic, being Protestant, being an old woman with a knowledge of herbs, etc - but that's a new one on me.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Angela, that was a long time ago. Let it go, already.

  • Peter||

    The concept of missing the forest for the trees appears to be a new one to you as well.
    Here's a site that lists punishments for sexual activities. Note that just being an unmarried man and having sex could get you in a lot of hot water (sorry, that's an expression, in case you don't know). Yes, they don't talk about getting burned at the stake, but again, forests and trees. The point was that sexual activity back in earlier in certain earlier times was more severely punished and less tolerated, unless unmarried men today are getting lashed somewhere I didn't know about. The medieval period might not even by the best example - maybe the American puritan period was the most intolerant. So Rush's attitude is early American, from the puritanical period. Okay?

  • ||

    This has nothing to do with a "medieval attitude" about sex. It has to do with Fluke's ludicrous suggestion that the expense of contraception is some kind of terrible financial hardship for women flush enough to afford the tuition at Georgetown Law.

    The only way that could be true is if the woman in question is using premium disposable contraception (i.e., condoms) and has -- to put this delicately -- an atypically active sex life.

    In which case, more power to her. But when she goes before Congress to demand that a religious institution pick up the tab, it should hardly be beyond the pale to suggest that maybe she should dial back the skankery, instead.

  • Peter||

    I think she was just exaggerating the cost of having regular sex. She's a fibber, an exaggerator, and a just another moocher.

  • cynical||

    When we have moochers surnamed after parasitic flatworms, I start to wonder whether I'm actually living in a really heavy-handed political novel written by some hyperreal objectivist.

    I don't know whether the thought should give me hope or terrify me to the core of my being.

  • ||

    And even if it were a huge financial burden, I'm unclear how that translates into justification for forcing someone else to pay for it.

  • ||

    Now that this issue is really descending into farce there's so much good stuff to reference:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNV6XEmLejA#t=0m16s

  • ||

    In the Winter it's cool,
    In the Summer it's hot,
    But all the year 'round,
    I think they're all a bunch of Twats!

  • Shorter Matt Taibbi||

    I refuse to wax my balls.

  • boomshanka||

    she testified before about wanting the Jesuits who run her college to pay for her birth control pills.

    Are you saying that Georgetown Law gives free health insurance to it's students and it's not actually paid for with students' tuition and fees?

  • Libertarian2||

    Well, I doubt very many male students buy the pill.

  • ||

    If Ms. Fluke has sexual partners, why *shouldn't* they help her manage the cost of her contraceptive method of choice? After all, they should have more interest than anyone else in her not becoming pregnant.

    If she is taking hormonal treatment for medical issues (such as cystitis), that really is quite another issue.

  • ||

    That's kind of a hard subject to bring up in a relationship. Lots of inhibitions and tanglements of sexual morality to overcome.

    It's much easier to just talk to Congress about it.

  • Sevo||

    "It's much easier to just talk to Congress about it."

    In front of a national audience.

  • Maxxx||

    For the 500th time;
    She was not talking or testifying to congress. She was participating in a fraudulent pseudo hearing, ie a press conference that was tarted up to look like a congressional hearing. The fact that this fraud required the active participation of the media seems to have been lost on everyone commenting about the issue.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Let us not forget that Fluke is a veritable child, merely four years removed from her parents' health insurance policy.

  • shamalamadingdong||

    +1

  • MJ||

    "Second, and more important, none of the rappers and liberals and leftists mentioned above is so feared by President Obama or any other Democrat that said Democrat would hesitate to criticize him if the occasion warranted it."

    Lefty celebreties are too unimportant to be held to any standards. That's has got to be one of the dumbest rationalizations I have ever seen in print. If something is unacceptably uncivil, it is unacceptable, it should noy matter who said it.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Only plausibly true statements are offensive*. Nobody really believes Malkin is a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." It's just an insult. Rush's statements are offensive because "slut" is uncomfortably close to "strong, independent womyn."

  • Sudden||

    Strong
    Liberated
    Uterus-bearing
    Tyrant

  • Almanian||

    Sticks and Stones
    May Break My Bones
    But Fuck You You Little Slut Bitch Cunt

    /whatever

  • ||

    I know you will all agree that profits are not legitimate.
    I doubt you would disagree that taking is giving, and not giving is taking.
    I am a conservative but you have to admit the democrat party cowers in fear before Rush Limbaugh.
    You believe in taxation so you admit that socialism is best.
    If you believe in private property rights you are a wealth apologist, and fuck, the rich arent even paying you. Libertarians supplicate themselves before the wealthy.

  • ||

    Wait, I did that spoof all wrong. That is the REAL Tony.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.6.12 @ 5:46PM|#
    "Nobody gives a shit if someone uses insulting language. When the shits start being given is when an entire political party is afraid to do a single thing to upset a morbidly obese shock jock who calls women sluts essentially for daring to contemplate having sex with men other than him."

    Shithead gives case study in the course on hypocrisy and is stupid enough not to realize it.

  • wef||

    what's the difference between Carbonite and contraception?

  • ||

    Something to do with Captain Hand Solo?

  • wef||

    Such a mind! Shame on you.

    Get your mind from out of the gutter.

    You are even now running behind. The servile mind is already busy eroding any difference between the two.

    Hurry. What is the difference between Carbonite and contraception?

  • Peter||

    Now if he had called her a "gal" that would really be something to get steamed about:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/ent.....ar/253910/

  • ||

    I remember a couple years back a college student had a private email conversation about race and IQ. When the emails were leaked she got eviscerated on liberal blogs. I do not know if she was crudely insulted by a famous leftwing commentator. If anyone remembers, this would be a direct counterpoint to Noah

  • teenage girls||

    "Did you hear? Rush called Sandra a slut! Wishful thinking, loser."

    "Yeah, like, whatever. God, he is soooo fat. It's like, he couldn't even pay someone to have sex with him, because he spent all his money on Crisco and twinkies. God, he is SUCH a douchebag."

  • ||

    "Addicted to Oxycontin?" Someone forget his libertarian catechism.

  • ||

    Matthews seems like a weird choice for this list given that he's routinely attacked from the left for his misogynistic comments. Search liberal blogs and political commentary sites for "Tweety" and you'll find people ranting about him.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Remember when Obama called him out on it?

  • MattyP||

    I don't get why people are having a conniption fit about the boycott of Rush's sponsors. It's the free market at work. You do like the free market, right?

  • ||

    Yeah, I like the free market, but the free market is being influenced by a huge push from media matters, move on and the like. That's intimidation and it sucks.

  • hamilton||

    Dude, most folks here don't give a shit about Rush or his sponsors. It's the Team Red / Team Blue hypocritical bullshit that is the issue here.

  • ||

    I think Reason Magazine could have written a better article. It was hard to follow. Kirsten Powers wrote a much better article.

  • Brooks||

    First paragraph of this article sounded like a Leftist rant... Mike Malloy, is that you?

  • Hypocritical Terds||

  • ||

    Political activist is a public figure you moron!

  • ||

    Intellectual honesty takes a vacation at the New Republic.

  • Mike||

    What about Joe the Plumber? The libs ripped him to shreds. None of this BS is cool from either side. I try to think about how this kind of stuff would sound if my 2 young boys were listening to me and the kind of example I'd be setting as an adult. That keeps me in check. Agree to disagree appropriately folks.

  • ||

    I really don't care what Noah thinks is more important to 'society'. That's a false premise anyway. I care about maintaining equal standards for ALL people. But, obviously, to the Left it's all about Us vs. Them and the ends do justify the means in their sick, twisted reality. When the Left can excoriate conservatives for upholding rights that are explicitly enumerated in the constitution, yet, they applaud the efforts of the OWS crowd and our President to work against the protections of the constitution, then indeed we have ourselves a clusterfark of a situation.

  • ||

    Nick, you forgot to mention all the times that the left wing fucktards felt it appropriate to call people "teabaggers" (a vulgar term if there ever was one) just for exercising their free speech and assembly rights. Even Obama, who has a bigger following than Rush, has used that term.

    The bottom line is that this entire slut controversy is phony outrage perpetrated by the left. Fuck them. They can go to hell!

  • ||

    Bill Mahar.....the dude that said the only heroes on 9/11 were the terrorists.......how can we forget that?
    Why is he still on the air?

  • ||

    Ah, so using Tim's logic, it's perfectly acceptable for me to say, announce to the world in a blog post that I'd like to take Timothy Noah behind the woodshed, put a bullet through his head and skull f*ck his corpse, because, after all, I've got no following at all.

    Good to know.

  • ||

    Uh... is it okay for Noah to refer to Limbaugh listeners as "knuckle-dragging" even though they're not public figures?

  • baby giraffes||

    "Fluke, on the other hand, though a political activist, was not really a public figure." Oh, like Joe the Plumber?

    This is bullshit, btw. Fluke put herself up as a public figure when she dishonestly tries to influence public policy, and especially when she expands her sense of entitlement to include everyone paying for her sex romps. She is a professional grievance industry professional, so technically, Rush was Right (again) about the prostitute part.

  • ||

    Absolutely correct.

  • ||

    Nick who?

  • I agree with you||

    Half right. The huge Rush audience simply means he has a proportionately larger number of people that clearly, totally, passionately, hate him.

    He is hated so much, for so long, the mob mentality, burn at the stake yelling is clear for all who are still level headed.

    Yes, there should be consequences for saying something like he said, but really, why all the hate, for fear of the spoken word?

  • ||

    Ms. Fluke has spent her entire adult life trying to make herself a public figure, she finally succeeded. Congratulations.

  • ||

    What about Miss Carrie Prejean, the Miss USA contestant, who was called many vile names by the libs for simply stating her own opinion, ever so sweetly, on gay marriage? She was certainly no public figure! Go figure!

  • Kris||

    she became a public figure when she decided to become a political activist. so it is the same

  • ||

    And now, because you have opted to speak on a matter of public interest on the world-wide web, you are a public figure as well. Slut.

  • ||

    When I testify before Congress for something you do not agree with, then go on television shows to continue to hammer that point home, you can call me a slut. Sandra Fluke is a public person and is one by her own choosing.

  • ||

    Get with the deconstructionist groove: it's all about power dynamics ... Blacks can't be racists because they have no power. Women can't be sexists because they have no power. Liberals can't be misogynists because -- compared to Rush -- they have no power. Apparently, you did not major in Gender studies, like Ms. Fluke.

  • ||

    I have an idea, why not instead of crying in your hate flakes about the tragedy of Rush Limbaugh being criticized for calling 51% of our nation sluts and hoo'ers, why don't you all be proactive and boycott Bill Maher's sponsors? And please don't try to tell me that Maher is somehow different because he is on a subscription-only cable service, or that he has far, far fewer viewers than Limbaugh has listeners, because that would be ridiculous. Maher and Limbaugh are exactly the same in every way, context has nothing to do with anything, and Palin and Fluke are analogous, as I am sure you agree.

    So tonight, the boycott of Maher's sponsors begins!!!

  • William P||

    I thought I smelled a lily-livered rat in Nick Gillespie. Here we are in the middle of a fight for the future of America and Nick piles on to the hate-Limbaugh band wagon.

    The problem with libertarians is that they really disdain the idea of being partisan. All so above the fray, aren't you? Yet the American revolutionaries were partisan, and indeed we need a second American revolution if there's a future for the free world.

    Which brings me to the problem with libertarianism: it gets human nature fundamentally wrong. I've learned great amounts from libertarians, but the modern day crop of free-marketers cannot seem to accept the world - not only as it is, but as it's always been.

    We have a Constitution that's worked since 1789. No need to reinvent the wheel. Our priority should be defeating the leftists who are destroying our institutions, not shooting our generals in the back.

  • ||

    My problem with Conservatives is that they get the constitution fundamentally wrong. It hasn't worked well since 1789. It worked really badly at that time and had to be amended over and over again. Did you know that when the Constitution was written, it was possible to pass State laws banning certain types of speech? Not until the 14th Amendment was passed did the Federal government get the right to pass laws protecting civil liberties. That's a monumental change 100 years in...and it didn't get enforced properly until 1965, which is, coincidentally, the exact same moment that the Republican party became the party of God, Guns, and (no) Gays. The fundamental insight of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is the existence of human rights and human equality...and those are the things that liberal voters and liberal politicians have always worked to defend.

  • hamilton||

    You get equality by bringing everyone down to a common level, but not the kind envisioned in the Declaration. Equality in that context means equality of liberty.

    And this isn't a conservative site for god's sake. Dammit when will people get that?

  • ||

    The comment I replied to said that the Constitution was perfect and needed to be defended from Liberals, hence my reply.

    I don't know any Liberals who envision a Harrison-Bergeron-esque Handicapper State that forces everyone to be mediocre. I think the reason Liberals (and Libertarians) tend to support Gay Rights, Women's Rights, etc. is that there's a belief that everyone should have the same freedoms. The difference between a Liberal and Libertarian is that Libertarians think that Government is inherently oppressive, whereas Liberals understand that people can find all kinds of ways to oppress each other, and that Government is a good way to keep that in check.

  • hamilton||

    Were you a regular, you would know that libertarians do in fact support government as a force for protecting people from opressing each other - witness the increasingly ignored protections of the Bill of Rights that suggest that the President cannot assassinate an American citizen without due process even if he's a Good Guy.

    Government is however also a tool that can be easily manipulated to use the power of the majority to force the minority to its will - like, for example, 50.0001% majorities forcing the 49.9999% to pay for their birth control. And, today, both Team Red and Team Blue routinely call for government (and thus force, meaning the threat of fine or imprisonment) to make everyone do what their Team says they should do - be it who to have sex with, what to eat, or what to pay for.

  • ||

    Yep, except that I see having Health Insurance as a kind of freedom from predatory companies that would without government intervention force me to either pay outrageous sums of money, or only go to doctors who prescribe cheaper or more profitable care, or who would kick me off of their insured list for trumped-up reasons. Government regulation is what stops that from happening. In a democracy, I have a voice in government regulation, whereas in a Libertarian state, the powerful can simply oppress at will. For example, men can take advantage of their patriarchal privileges to pretend that birth control isn't a reasonable part of any comprehensive health care plan.

  • hamilton||

    Companies do not force you to do anything, and regulation generally only serves to create new ways to game the system and reward the powerful who can afford lobbyists. But this is probably a fundamental ideological difference we have, and is probably descending into troll feeding, so I must regretfully and respectfully return to work.

  • ||

    It's not really an ideological difference we're having, nor is it a difference of opinion. To agree with you, I would have to agree that companies never exert coercive power over people, and since companies control things like people's livelihood (through employment), people's access to health care, access to information (through distribution of false or biased information), and apparently religion (through discrimination against religious opposition under the guise of "freedom"), I would have to say that you're factually wrong. Unchecked corporate power is dictatorship (or oligarchy) by another name. I have trouble understanding why you don't see that.

  • ||

    Call us back when Starbucks sends armed men to your home and sticks you in a cell for not buying the appropriate amount of their coffee products.

  • incredulous||

    This: "In a democracy, I have a voice in government regulation"

    is pure fantasy. You and I have absolutely no voice whatsoever. The politically connected manipulate your beloved government regulation to their advantage as a means to oppress at will. The only regulation that works at all is consumer choices in a competitive market.

  • ||

    When you talk about freedom in terms of impressing other people into you service involuntarily, you're not really talking about freedom any longer.

  • William P||

    "It hasn't worked well since 1789."

    Yeah, good point. And it explains why we live in this horrible, poor, and repressive country to which everybody seems to immigrate.

  • ||

    The explanation for our country's greatness is that a) The moral and political foundation of the Constitution is pretty damned awesome, and b) Part of that foundation allowed for radical changes to be made in the face of history, and c) Liberals (like the original Republican Party) worked hard to force those changes to happen. If they hadn't, we'd be living in a country where the Federal Government would have a constitutional duty to help return black people to their owners.

  • William P||

    Your reasoning in a nutshell:

    The Constitution was inspired (and presumably written) by men of outstanding moral and political rectitude.

    It sucked. It encouraged slavery and racism. The only good thing about it was that it was malleable.

    Only after radically changing (i.e. dispensing with) the (self-admitted) "damned awesome" moral foundation of the Constitution was America able prosper.

    Like a good liberal, you thrive on self-contradiction, libel, and obfuscation.

  • William P||

    The truth is that mostly the same people who wrote the Declaration of Independence wrote the Constitution. Whereas the Declaration was a grand and humble appeal for human rights, the Constitution was a practical, though equally grand, governing document. The Declaration essentially authored away slavery in 1776, though it took nearly a century and a bloody war to finally abolish.

    Just admit it: You hate liberty, and would rather have some nameless, faceless, and unimpeachable bureaucrats tell your fellow citizens what to do and how to think. What you don't seem to realize is that you are encumbered in the same oppressive system you so eagerly look to establish.

  • ||

    I think it's pretty telling that you had to rewrite my argument into what you wish it was before you could accuse me of contradiction, obfuscation, and libel. And William, I think that Jefferson would have been pretty surprised to know that he was authoring away slavery given the number of slaves he owned.

  • ||

    You have to rewrite history in order to be right about what you're saying, but you can't. What happened, happened. There were LOTS of good things about the Constitution, but it ALSO created a Federal Government that was too small and weak to protect civil liberties and that in fact had no interest in doing so. The people who changed that were liberals. The people in the way were conservatives, who have been on the wrong side of history for pretty much the whole time America has existed.

    I love liberty. All liberals do. I just define liberty as being fundamentally connected to equality, and I see government as a way that I can help protect equality. I also think that without the protection of government, there can be no liberty, and if you don't believe me, you should look to the City on a Hill that is Somalia.

  • ||

    Delusions, Mr. Wordsworth, delusions!

  • ||

    But seriously, Jefferson, of course owned slaves. He struggled with the strange institution, as did George Washington. The Constitution ended the importation of slaves. The compromise confined slavery to the south in order to hold the union together. Many of the Framers viewed the issue of slavery as a temporary evil that had to be accepted in order to secure collective security and preserve unity among the former colonies.

    I don't need lectures on your half-baked analysis of libertarianism, minarchism, whatever... I'm making the point that America is almost without question the greatest nation ever to exist.

  • ||

    And that's because, as Reagan said, "If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth."

    You so-called liberals, so-called "progressives," hate individual liberty. That you, and so many other drones, cannot recognize this is the issue of our age. Thus we tilt toward totalitarianism.

    Meanwhile, Nick Gillespie attacks Rush Limbaugh. How pathetic.

  • ||

    This is some good weed-induced dementia. My problem with liberals is not that they hold different positions than I on key issues, but they assume their views are facts and that a dissenting view must be wrong or a lie.

  • Chuck||

    The constitution has used the amendment process that was written in on day one on no less than eighteen separate occasions (the first 10 were all in one go). It would appear to me that these deific perfect men who wrote the immortal perfect document believed it could use some tinkering with from time to time.

    Incidentally, does your commander in chief count as one of your generals?

  • ||

    Well, David Letterman called Sarah Palin's young daughter a slut and she was not a public figure. And Kathy Griffin, who really is the C word, savaged Palin's 14 year old daughter, Willow. There is simply nothing more vicious than a compassionate liberal.

  • ||

    ...although conservatives apparently can't get through a whole comment without calling someone a cunt.

  • elhefe||

    If the shoe fits...

  • ||

    Never underestimate the publics capacity for gullibility. The Malfeasant Media counts on it, they drove the story in the 2008 election by first shooting down Clinton & Romney, while promoting Øbama & McCain in the primaries, the sun didn't set the day of Romneys withdrawal and the MM attacked McCains wife as a drunk! Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. The MM is driving this non-story to deflect attention away from Øbummer's record of Epic Fail. It's your fault if you buy into this drivel.

  • ||

    I thought this was a place for libertarians, not wussy crybabies.

  • ||

    It's worth remembering a few things in this discussion:

    1) Whether there is a liberal equivalent or not does not affect the vileness or acceptability of Rush's comments.

    2) Fluke didn't ask "the rest of us" to pay for her health care. She asked that the health insurance that Georgetown buy with a portion of the tuition money she pays them go towards paying for birth control. That's perfectly reasonable.

    3) Rush's comments implied something silly - that is, that the amount of money a woman would have to pay out of pocket for birth control per year is in any way related to how much sex she's having. That's not how being on the pill works, and most people know that.

  • ||

    4) It's utterly crass to slut-shame women, to make jokes about sexual violence, etc, no matter who does it.

    5) The attacks on Fluke were of a different kind than the attacks on Bachmann or Malkin or whoever, insofar as Rush seemed to be saying that he thought Fluke was literally an entitled whore, whereas saying Malkin has balls in her mouth or that Bachmann should be hate-fucked is, while gross, pretty obviously NOT meant literally. I don't believe Marc Maron wants to have sex with Michelle Bachmann at all, but I totally do think that Rush Limbaugh wants to watch video of Fluke having sex.

  • ||

    6) Until we start hearing about how viagra shouldn't be covered by health insurance, everything Rush said and, by extension, everything said in his defense is unreflectively hypocritical. Lots of men have their sex lives subsidized by their insurance; no one is complaining about that, therefore the attacks on Fluke are not a complaint about subsidizing the sex lives of others so much as they are an attack on the idea that women have a right to sexual freedom.

  • hamilton||

    1) true.

    2) Not true. She "testified" before a "congressional hearing" (e.g. photo-op) about her situation and that of fellow students to support a mandate that ALL insurers cover birth control. Hence "the rest of us" would pay.

    3) Half marks. For the pill that is correct. Spending $Thousands a year might indicate something else, given the price of the Pill.

    4) True, though crass sells and is sometimes funny.

    5) You are perhaps inserting your opinion / mind reading here as opposed to a factual analysis.

    6) Probably no one here would care too much about covering Viagra. Although it should be pointed out that Viagra does correct for a body malfunction. Birth control - condoms, the Pill, whatever - is used to affect the outcome of a completely voluntary activity.

  • ||

    So back to 2) The idea of the mandate is that all insurance companies are required to offer free birth control coverage if the companies that insure through them have a religious objection to paying for it. That doesn't change the fact that the money going into the pool for insurance comes from students like Fluke who give it to Georgetown to pay for the insurance with.

    and 5) Yep, that's my opinion; I can't know what's in people's hearts, but I'm fairly certain I know what he meant, and intent does ultimately matter.

  • ||

    and 6) Viagra is most commonly used to enhance recreative sex, not as a fertility aid. The pill has other medical uses besides contraception, but we understand that what it's most common function is is to empower women sexually in the same way viagra empowers men sexually. If the point is to allow employers to prevent insurers from providing birth control for free given religious objections (and that's what we're talking about here), the same principle ought to apply to viagra, and it doesn't largely because this whole debate is poisoned with unexamined male privilege and the obsessive desire to win a morality debate with Obama, who, while not a perfect president, really doesn't deserve to be demonized.

  • hamilton||

    No, it comes from all customers of the insurance company, and even if you limit it to the pool of Georgetown students, that certainly includes those who have a philosophical objection (maybe because they chose to go to a Jesuit University) or who just don't want to be obligated to fund someone else's voluntary behaviour.

    and on 5) your position on (4) seems to contradict your statement on intent, but ultimately you're basically saying "Evil Team Red Guy MEANT it, Nice Team Blue guys were being clever, you fools are too unsubtle to understand the difference, nyaa nyaa".

  • ||

    I get how you could read me that way, and maybe I just really don't understand that when Rush spends 9 hours calling somebody a slut it's a metaphor or a joke and not his actual opinion, but I guess that's just how it comes off to me.

    The argument about "Voluntary Behavior" illustrates the silliness of this whole conversation. There are people in my insurance pool who don't exercise or who eat badly, and there are people who are in great shape but race motorcycles or work with drug addicts or engage in other risky voluntary behavior that might require medical care. But because I value *freedom*, I don't ask for a list of all the people in the pool so I can choose which ones to help pay for when they need a doctor.

  • ||

    Similarly, Georgetown is not a church, it's a business, and as such I don't see why the owners of that business have a right to tell its insurers to deny their customers and employees health care based on a religious disagreement. The religion of my boss should not affect what drugs I'm allowed to be insured for, and the idea that everyone should get a chance to morally approve everyone else's medical decisions is about as absurd a nanny state as I've ever heard described by anyone.

  • Earth to Kablah||

    not paying for =/= denying

    Sheesh!

  • hamilton||

    For (6): yeah, that's why I said most people here would not care - but at least you could make a "medically necessary" argument, just as you could for the Pill in its non-contraceptive applications.

    For Obama: sorry, assassination, wiretapping, drone killings, indefinite detention. Guess those are just being "imperfect". And, pre-emptively: yes Bush was also a bastard when he did it.

  • ||

    No, I totally agree, those things are problematic, although they're still an improvement on starting gigantic wars on the public time for trumped up reasons, and I'm still of the opinion that Obama probably would have shut down Gitmo if he hadn't run into a wall of crazy when he suggested giving the inmates civilian trials. But still, I'm with you on all of that.

  • ||

    dime, not time

  • ||

    Spot on. He was insulting. He was also completely wrong. Take one look at the comments section of any right wing blog/news sites and you will also see an entire legion of un-informed people who believed what he said with no critical thought whatsoever. So, to reiterate, Rush was completely incorrect in every single statement he made on the subject.

    And as far as Olberman, Maher, and all the others are concerned.....go do a quick internet search. They were criticized immediately by Liberals and women, and they apologized almost immediately. Why did it take Rush so long to issue a weak apology?

  • ||

    Olbermann has never apologized to Malkin. Schultz's apology was about as sincere as Limbaugh's, it was compelled by his employer.

    I suggest you do a Google search before you make stupid posts like that.

  • ||

    Keep rallying to the pill-popping sex tourist who likes taking Viagra along to spots well known for their child-sex industry.

  • ||

    Sarah Palin lied by saying Obama pals around with terrorists, which indeed makes her a twat/cunt.

  • hamilton||

    Because in fact he does not associate at all with armed people who kill civilians like research scientists or children living in villages or anything like that, right?

  • AkaDad||

    It sounds like your saying our soldiers are terrorists.

  • ||

    Ahm...who exactly do you think Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and the rest of The Weather Underground are? Boy Scouts?

  • ||

    Aren't they a punk band?

  • ||

    Bill Ayers.

    inb4 he's not a terrorist
    inb4 they aren't friends
    inb4 you're just a racist

  • ||

    Why does every article about the slut media-whore prostitute-for-Obama WTFluke start with the lie that she "testified" before Congress? She gave no such "testimony"! She spoke at a Nancy Pelosi orchestrated kabuki theatre set up to "look like" a Congressional hearing. Every time a writer repeats the lie that Congress allowed this twat/cunt to actually spew her lies in a formal setting, she gains credibility. Cameras, a Democrat audience, and Nancy Pelosi's presence do not a Congressional hearing make. If you're going to write, write the damned truth. You play by the Left's rules. I'll give them back double what they dish out. And Nancy Pelosi is "a callused-assed strumpet and a low-born gutter slut".
    Where's Sarah? Don't Retreat, Reload!

  • ||

    It's sad to me that you're a real person.

  • ||

    AkaDad, you are a liar. Wanna' duel?

  • AkaDad||

    Sure. Muskets at dawn?

  • ||

    I will be sending a proxy, my son, a senior weapons sergeant on an ODA team, currently in Afghanistan. Enjoy!

  • ||

    Leave it to a blow-hard libertarian to write a story about blow-hards.

  • ||

    Coke or Pepsi - make your choice. Just don't waste your time trying to talk to the Coke/Pepsi fan. They cannot see their worldview is premised upon sugarwater. I love the "yeah well Rush is a pig.." Uhhh, ok. I don't even listen to his show - it is boring. But I find it VERY entertaining watching people contort themselves - "No, hypocrisy is when the OTHER guy does it...." Sort of like someone covered in Sh*t looks at the person next to them and tries to put on airs.

    Make Truth "relative" comrades - but there will be no tears later.

  • ||

    The most important difference is the substance of the misogynistic comments made. All the supposedly equivalent bad actors on the left used misogynistic terms in a generally pejorative way, which is bad enough, but merely juvenile. Limbaugh attacked Fluke as a "slut" and a "prostitute" because she advocates for access to birth control. He meant these words literally!

  • ||

    Keep digging. Eventually you'll be in a hole so deep you won't be able to get out of it.

  • ||

    I am Breitbart. You're sadness is my afternoon snack. What I really love is to make enemies of the Progressive Left. If you have to cry, go do it by yourself and be quick about it.

  • ||

    Another stupid false equivalency argument -- a well established genre of snivellers who like their red meat raw and angry, and will defend it in this manner.

    I have the following suggestion so that maybe you can unhinge the illogic controlling your brain. Go find all of the liberal articles defending Ed Schultz, Keith Olberman or Bill Maher's allegedly equivalent statements. Go find all of the left leaning bloggers claiming Ed Schultz, Olberman and Bill Maher's comments are inconsequential because the rightie blowhards behave similarly. Can't find them? Cause there is no shortage of righties rallying to Rush.

    Then explain how Rush's three day lying tirade and rant is allegedly similar to a solo off-color remark by your liberal "equivalents."

  • ||

    I know of few righties who are defending what Rush said. In fact, I know of no prominent righty defending what Rush said.

  • ||

    The point is that they didn't need to be defended. What they said was not the kernel of a follow-on fabricated orgy of pretend outrage, the purpose of which was to divert the public's attention from a real violation of the First Amendment and the President's cynicism. Leftists didn't have to defend them because they weren't forced to confront what they had said.

  • ||

    If anyone believes the Leftists are going to change their battle plan against conservative women, they are deluded. Objectify, sexualize, demonize, dehumanize is their repeated pattern. Give it back in spades! Nice loses against an enemy who gives no quarter, knows no boundaries of civility, uses any lie that gains ground. I'm tired of nice. I want to hear the lamentations of their women, sluts all.

  • AkaDad||

    Are you drunk?

    Leftists pass laws that say women should get paid the same as men. Conservatives/Republicans pass laws for government mandated vaginal probes.

  • ||

    Random vaginal probes? Really? Do you have a cite?

    Either way, I think Federally mandated vaginal probes are permitted as an exercise of Congress' authority under the commerce clause, right?

  • ||

    It's fascinating to watch liberals spin bizarre and irrelevant arguments as to why the very same negative activity their side behaves in is not the same as that committed by the right. This is the left in microcosm, not a consistent ideology, but a position that can be defended by whatever argument of the moment sounds good.

  • Dennis S||

    I challenge you to watch this video and not come out feeling that Mr. Limbaugh was way way over the line.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....ndra-Fluke

  • Chuck||

    Rush Limbaugh went on for four days, calling Fluke, a private citizen, a slut or some variation thereof at least fifty-three times, as a campaign to undermine her for testifying before congress.

  • ||

    When did she testify before congress? It wasn't a hearing, she never took an oath. It was a dog and pony (bitch and mare?) show, not a congressional hearing. But while you're lying about that, go ahead and call Limbaugh a liar.

  • ||

    "It matters more to society what a person with a big following says than what a person with a small following says"

    IIRC, Jesus started with 12, Lenin's "majoritarians" (Russian "Bolshevik) were the minority party, and Hitler was the 55th member to join the Nazi party. Yeah, it's all in the numbers ;)

    As St. John of Damascus warned, a small thing is not a small thing, if it leads to something great.

  • ||

    Limbaugh's offense is not mere name calling, and he needn't have used the words "slut" or "prostitute" for what he did to have been just as egregious. He was making the argument that we can in fact infer from Sandra Fluke's testimony that she is actually promiscuous. He meant this literally, and he meant to intimidate her into silence or punish her -- and others like her -- by damaging her reputation. He was not merely telling a joke or calling someone a name. He intended to use his enormous power as a popular political commentator to silence a private citizen whose opinion he didn't like by slandering her publically. By contrast Schultz and others were making a figurative use of language to call people names. No one thinks that Schultz was making an extended argument to the effect that Ingraham was sleeping around. And none of this name calling could possibly intimidate its targets.

  • ||

    The whole point is that the woman invited scrutiny of her personal life by her testimony before Congress not under Subpoena. That's the price you pay for getting involved in a matter of public concern - you don't get to give only the (hearsay) testimony that supports the side of an issue that you prefer. We get to know who the woman is, that she's a professional agitator, and the necessary implications of her testimony and the policy she is promoting were it to become law. Id you'd rather not deal with that, you can, you know, refrain from giving testimony to Congress.

  • redinblue||

    Re Timothy Noah: "It matters more to society what a person with a big following says than what a person with a small following says"

    In 1923, a wacky former German Army corporal named Adolf Hitler had a very small following. By 1933, he was chancellor of Germany.

    Just sayin'.

  • ||

    ....aaaand you lose for invoking the Nazis.

  • ||

  • ||

    I never heard of Nick Gillespie and, thus, am not familiar with his other views. However, he weakens his points with his gratuitous attacks on Limbaugh.

    There is one way to test the liberals' claim that it is different when a talk show host attacks a public figure. If Limbaugh used the terms he used regarding Fluke against, say, Nancy Pelosi or Debbie Wasserman Schultz, do you think the liberals would laugh it off as they have with the hate-speech Maher, et. al, have directed towards conservative women?

  • ||

    While I agree that the liberals mentioned are misogynistic, and I tend not to watch or read what any of them say, the major difference here is that the premise of Rush Limbaugh's rant was entirely without evidence. We have no idea if Fluke takes the pill, or even if she is sexually active. She didn't even discuss sex in her testimony. She talked about women who needed birth control pills for medical reasons, such as ovarian cysts. Yet Rush concluded from that testimony that she must be having lots and lots of sex with lots of different men. That doesn't even make sense. Furthermore, he suggested that all women who have used contraception are promiscuous. So he has insulted me, too. And I take that much more personally than I take any insult to Hillary Clinton or Laura Ingraham.

  • ||

    He concluded no such thing. He was making a point - albeit in a hamfisted way - that she's inviting scrutiny of her personal life by seeking to require an organ of the Catholic Church to pay for her contraception.

  • ||

    Alec-- Oh yes he did. He literally and repeatedly claimed that she was having so much sex that she was unable to afford the cost of the birth control that her behavior required. Setting aside his misperception of how hormonal birth control works, his "hamfisted" argument had nothing to do with whether "she was inviting scrutiny of her personal life" as you claim. That issue didn't come up until after he maligned her and after the public backlash. His actual argument was that we shouldn't subsidize sluts like Fluke unless they perform public sex acts on you tube.

  • ||

    Nobody listens to Maher and Schultz, except that sitting members of Congress and the DNC Chair appear on their shows regularly to chortle and agree while they say what it is that they say. So, in effect, Maher’s and Schultz’ audience is rarified and full of the most influential people on the left and in the Democratic party whose participation is necessary to the very existence of their shows, however we are to believe that what they say is somehow different and unworthy of scrutiny.

    He should just say what he thinks, which is that women who support causes and candidates (or who are candidates) on the right of the political spectrum aren't really women, it is acceptable to hate and denigrate them, and they don't deserve the level of respect that real women do.

  • ||

    Libertarians 4 The Punanee Police!

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Not sure the Democrats would give up that position.

    They seem to enjoy telling people that pornography and consensual sex are equivalent to rape too much to allow anyone else to take a stab.

  • ||

    Thanks, Nick, for being honest about Limbaugh upfront. We should all be able to agree that he is not a nice man. And I do take your point about left-leaning media personalities who have made comparably ugly and misogynist remarks. I avoid Maher and the other liberal commenators you mentioned -- well, at least those I've actually heard of -- for similar reasons. Men and women of good conscience, both liberals and conservatives,should speak up when these guys (and they are mostly guys) get nasty. But I do respectfully disagree with you that they are all equivalent. Limbaugh says repulsive things more often and to a much larger audience than the others mentioned. And he has had the ear of his party of choice in a way that the others can only dream of, assuming that's their goal. Indeed, he has pretty much had his party BY the ear for more than a decade.

  • ||

    First of all,this young lady was merely testifying about her opinion,as an employee of Georgetown,on being not afforded services.Sarah Palin is a national figure,who gives as good as she gets,and has the forum to answer thes kind of slurs.This woman had none of that.Limbaugh was bullying a woman,as he did a 13 year old for christs sakes,and a disabled man with parkinsons.Limbaughs actions are a culmination,as with Imus,of ugly remarks.

  • ||

    There are two points that seem significantly misunderstood here and they are:
    1. A mandate that insurance companies pay for birth control is the same as taxpayers paying the cost.

    This is simply not true. Health care is offered as an employee benefit and thus something we earn for our labor and we are all pooled together to reduce costs, so we all pay for each other’s health care. The mandate probably reduces the cost of insurance in general .
    2. That Fluke testified about her sex life. She did not mention it.
    And Limbaugh wasn't just one-off name calling,. Over the course of four days and 57 times, he called Fluke a literal slut and a prostitute. And he, 61 years old, got super creepy about it, saying he wanted to watch her have sex, saying there were probably guys lined up around the block, and wondering who bought her condoms when she was 11. That's just gross.

  • ||

    People seem to think:
    1. A mandate that insurance companies pay for birth control is equal to taxpayers paying.

    Not true. Health care is offered as an employee benefit and thus something we earn for our labor and we are all pooled together to reduce costs, so we all pay for each other’s health care. The mandate probably reduces the cost of insurance in general .
    2. That Fluke testified about her sex life. She did not mention it.
    And Limbaugh wasn't just one-off name calling,. Over the course of four days and 57 times, he called Fluke a literal slut and a prostitute. And he, 61 years old, got super creepy about it, saying he wanted to watch her have sex, saying there were probably guys lined up around the block, and wondering who bought her condoms when she was 11. That's just gross.

  • ||

    A mandate that an institution that pays for the health insurance of its employees pay for a plan that includes birth control is indistinguishable from mandating that the institution pay for birth control.

  • ||

    Alec, I know this must strike you, as a man, as incredible, but birth control, to women, is a health issue. Just like health insurance should pay for other health issues, it should pay for birth control. Crazy isn't it?

    And just think what libertarians are arguing in siding with the church, that any religious group can, for whatever religious reasons, refuse health care. So,it can refuse blood transfusions? Flu shots? Heart surgery? This would be logically possible via that argument. What on earth is your philosophical reasoning here? The government is actually acting on behalf of individual freedom and you're arguing against it?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "And just think what libertarians are arguing in siding with the church, that any religious group can, for whatever religious reasons, refuse health care. So,it can refuse blood transfusions? Flu shots? Heart surgery?"

    HEY DERE, NON SEQUITUR!

  • ||

    Toilet paper and toenail clippers are a health issue by your standard. I don't think insurance is the appropriate means to pay for either, and I certainly don't think that my need for either is sufficient cause for the coercive arm of government to force another entity to foot the bill for my use of them.

    I think the libertarians are arguing that any employer ought to be able to negotiate a compensation package with its employees that it deems appropriate and in conformity with its beliefs. Of course, feminists could found Universities and Hospitals and charities and ensure that every woman is stuffed with contraceptives like a suckling pig if they weren't too busy destroying those that belong to others.

  • ||

    What planet do you live on? This is all about Obamacare, and surely you realize that we will all be paying?

    It will take over 1/6 of our economy, wreck the best health care in the world, and be the linch pin in our transformation to socialism.

    Actually, another term with OBama, and we would be lucky if it were "ONLY" socialism.

  • ||

    Both Malikin and Palin are part of the political machine.And you seem to forget what names were used for Hillary in that same context.

    The difference is since you cant seem to wrap your little brains around this and are desperate to excuse vile depraved thuggery and slander,This young woman is a PRIVATE citizen whos testimony before congress was not only taken completely out of context but was then was vilified in the most malignant and reprehensable way over the PUBLIC airwaves.

    FYI...Maher was kicked off national TV for far less.But why have context or be honest.

  • ||

    Fluke is not a private figure by the standard set forth in Sullivan v. NY Times. You insist that she is a "private citizen" in order to further the lie that she is a poor, defenseless coed, rather than a professional agitator with a very defined chip on her shoulder.

  • ||

    But under Hustler v. Falwell, the content of the statement matters. Calling Palin or Cllinton a slut is protected speech, just as accusing Falwell of bestiality and incest was. Because it was obviously over the top. But even if Fluke was a public figure, as you contend, Rush was accusing Fluke of being a literal slut and whore. Entirely different statements and therefore entirely different analysis.

  • ||

    "Fluke, on the other hand, though a political activist, was not really a public figure."

    So if Rush had called Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton a "c*nt, bitch, whore, or slut," the Left would have looked the other way? No firestorm? No demands for apologies? No boycotts? Yeah right.

  • ||

    This is the stupidest two wrongs make a right argument I've heard in ages. You could just as easily flip things around and ask, why did conservatives get outraged at Bill Maher and not Rush Limbaugh? What a logically inconsistent way of thinking.

    I am 100% behind both of them being able to say whatever they want. Do you realize how fucking stupid you sound by saying 'well this person called someone a cunt 3 years ago.' If the incidents are analogous why aren't people defending Maher as strongly as Limbaugh?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    The article at no point attempts to postulate any sort of "two wrongs make a right" claim.

    Did you even bother to read it?

    "If you've ever needed a reason to rethink dumb attachments to the left-right, liberal-conservative Manicheanism at the heart of conventional politics, the sort of idiotic Team Red vs. Team Blue mentality underscored by Noah's need to exonerate the misogyny of his ideological allies should give you something to ponder."

  • ||

    This is the stupidest two wrongs make a right argument I've heard in ages. You could just as easily flip things around and ask, why did conservatives get outraged at Bill Maher and not Rush Limbaugh? What a logically inconsistent way of thinking.

    I am 100% behind both of them being able to say whatever they want. Do you realize how fucking stupid you sound by saying 'well this person called someone a cunt 3 years ago.' If the incidents are analogous why aren't people defending Maher as strongly as Limbaugh?

  • ||

    I am a gay man, and my concern here is with an individual's freedom of expression...and to experience. Of course, contraception should be widely available and inexpensive! Still, we should choose our friends carefully, as truly liberated persons are not offended by being called a slut, or a prostitute. The persons who claim this offense have probably sublimated their own negative feelings about sexuality, rather than having liberated them. This association of victimization with sexual freedom ultimately demonizes sexual experience. Rather, it is better to say: Prostitution is among the oldest and most noble of professions in its necessity, and slutdom is the exquisite sphere of influence in which its delights are experienced.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "It's because there is no rapper or liberal or leftist commentator or talk-radio host or comedian who commands anything equivalent to the knuckle-dragging army of haters that Limbaugh leads on the right."

    Except for Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Al Sharpton, Janeane Garofalo, Howard Zinn, Rage For The Machine and a dozen other crappy bands, Bill Hicks, Oliver Stone, Alex Jones . . .

  • Matt J||

    I was talking to a local TV journalist from KC the other day. He told me, after lying about covering Maher and Schultz, that the reason they were focusing on the Rush story was his ratings. Schultz is too small and Maher...is something, I forget his excuse. He was dishonest and I'm pissed at myself for not demanding to see his proof that they covered the other idiots doing the same thing.

  • Matt J||

    It was Kris Ketz, for anyone that was interested. Longtime anchor for the ABC affiliate.

  • ||

    MattJ-- Of course ratings drive the media. Rush is popular. That's why his screw up (and the attempt to justify it) is in the news and won't go away anytime soon. Or are you one of those liberal weenies who thinks that journalists should expose liars and frauds even if it doesn't help their ratings and hurts profits? Do you hate the free market that much?

  • ||

    Give him time. I'm sure he'll come up with the reason that he didn't exert the same level of scrutiny on Maher and Schultz if he thinks long and hard enough.

  • Ronny T.||

    didn't know HILLARY CLINTON was now considered a "Conservative Woman." Did I miss one of those Orwellian polarity switches at some point? Back in my day Hillary Clinton was quintessential shorthand for everything despised by conservatives. Also I love how every single mention of Matthews has to remind of his Obama leg-tingling, seldom do we get reminders of his intoxication at the silver fox aura and Aqua Velva fumes of Fred Thompson. All this is to say that the symmetry Gillespie struggles to contrive isn't there. It's not the same kind of partisan nastiness when it's directed at a part of one's own party. Also, Malkin and Ingraham are objectively awful people, when Fluke gets caught doing something like justifying Japanese internment or sabotaging conservative voter help lines I'll be more than happy to say she is merely getting back a taste of the awful shit she dishes out regularly.

  • ||

    This is total bullsh*t. Fluke made herself a public figure by choosing to go public about her hedonistic sex life. She got what she deserved. Bill Maher is nothing but a muckraker and comedy bottom-feeder. The main stream media doesn't even bother to hide their support of the double standard in civil discourse. A pitiful outcome for what once was a revered and honored tradition of honest news reporting.

  • Bill Clinton||

    I would hit it!

  • ||

    Agree with so much of what you say, but have to take exception to your implication that to "take someone into a room and see who comes out" is a threat of domestic violence. It IS implied violence, yes (usually sticks are involved), but simply because one of those persons is female does not make it a threat of domestic violence. It is a STANDARD figurative scenario to see which person or idea prevails. Unless you're advocating preferential treatment for women in what is a "bare-knuckle fight" analogy, and I don't think that's your intent.

  • ||

    Matt Tiabbi is a effin' coward.

  • ||

    I'm 65 years old and I've never once in my life heard the expression "hate FxxK." Never. Not once. And when I finally do, it's coming from a liberal. If I used that expression in front of my friends they would probably stand up, look at me and say "I don't even know you." Then they would leave.

  • ||

    Jewish jokes are only funny if told by Jews. Snoop can use the Nword. Elvis can't. Feminists (like Maher) can say "slut" without implying a hatred of women. Rush can't.

  • ||

    Its different when a horse's rear end like Maher says it because the people who are complaining about Limbaugh now are morons

  • ||

    Its different when a horse's rear end like Maher says it because the people who are complaining about Limbaugh now are morons

  • ||

    Joanne -- Exactly! As every non-moron knows, women who use birth control are whores and must be made to perform public sex acts. And since you are obviously not a moron, when and where can we see your video? Are you hot?

  • ||

    The same liberals who claim to be for "tolerance" exhibit none when it comes to anyone who disagrees with them.

  • FreedomFan||

    Timothy Noah is such an ashwipe:

    If no one fears Maher, who just gave $1m to Obama, then let him show it by returning the money and condemning his misogyny.

    If "everyone knowing" the victim, then I suppose david letterman's telling disgusting rape jokes about Todd and Sarah Palin's little girls was just dandy with Noah.

    If "everyone knows" the victim, then it's okay to use the most filthy sexual smears in the lexicon? Then if Maher, his guests, and trained clapping seals tell sex jokes and laugh at Bachmann's spouse, then is it okay for Limbaugh to do the same to Obama's spouse, Michelle?

    It's wonderful when all the libs like Noah, drop the mask and expose their own hypocrisy and defend hideous misogyny.

  • ||

    FreedomFan--Rush claimed that Fluke was a literally a slut. Letterman said, "One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game; during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez." It was a vile thing to say, certainly, but if you think that Letterman was literally claiming that A-Rod had sex with Palin's daughter during a baseball game, you lack basic reasoning skills. If you want to argue moral equivalents, imagine if Letterman had spent three days claiming that, in fact, Palin's daughter had screwed every single major league baseball player and we should therefore boycott baseball, then you might have an argument. But until then, settle down.

  • FreedomFan||

    "...if you think that Letterman was literally claiming that A-Rod had sex with Palin's daughter during a baseball game, you lack basic reasoning skills."

    "Pablo" you are a complete moron ... and a shamelessly hypocritical "progressive"... but I repeat myself.

  • ||

    Nice response, homes. Gonna call that one a win. See ya!

  • ||

    Limbaugh subsequently fake-apologized for his untoward remarks. Why a fake apology? Because being a former Oxycontin addict and super-conservative marrying man means never having to say you're sorry.

    Rush apologizes, you declare his apology a "fake", then lambast him for an attitude of never having to apologize. Cute! You flunk Logic 101.

  • ||

    DrJ -- before you start handing out logic grades, take a closer look. "fake apologies" are entirely consistent with "an attitude of never having to apologize." See, that is because fake apologies aren't real apologies. They're fake. Like the kind of thing you would say if you didn't mean it. Because, um, you don't feel the need to apologize. So you fake it. Because, um, see? It really isn't that hard. I won't flunk you, but you do need to stay after class and write "I have no reason to be smug" 100 times on the blackboard.

  • FreedomFan||

    Perhaps Limbaugh's apology was fake ... but was Maher's? Wait... that's right-- libs like Maher and their applauding trained seal audience and running dog MSM apologists never make apologies for their routine misogynist filth.

  • ||

    Maher didn't apologize. Ergo it wasn't fake, genius. As for the others, Schultz and Letterman did apologize. Abjectly. Whooops, there goes your argument. And the idea that "libs" routinely spew misogynist filth is borderline stupid. Unless by "libs" you mean gangsta rappers, in which case there is nothing borderline about it.

  • Pedro||

    Limbaugh didn't just call the girl a slut and a whore, he said she was a slut because she used birth control and that she was a whore because she wanted insurance companies to pay for it. This could be taken to mean that Limbaugh thinks anyone who takes birth control is a slut etc. etc. and while you're counterargument refers to attacks on individual public figures, this is a broader attack on a large population of private individuals. Even if the "left-wing" media is taking advantage of that, its not a smart thing to say or defend. Ask anybody who works in PR, including those who work for your bosses.

  • ||

    This was a well thought out article which made the point that the El Rushbo thing is spotlighting an important issue in conventional politics ~ putting an attachment to left-right red-blue stuff is something we should think about. Look, America is a big, diverse country, and there are going to be a lot of people with whom we don't agree, at all. What, exactly, is the point of escalating our arguments with each other to the level where we can sling out the hate speech? What and where, is this going to get us in the end? The reality is that humans are never going to be of one mind set. If we can't allow for these differences in our society and find a way to talk to each other to find reasonable solutions instead of working ourselves into continual frenzies of outrage...
    Something to ponder.

  • Bill Clinton||

    Liberals are sluts, I should know.

  • ||

    Like wow ya know like this stuff
    is always like great.
    I think like Maher is like really
    funny, I mean like ugly and like his audience is like really intelligent.(?) Like Kim Kardashian can now like hawk on the Rush Limbaugh program to make up for his like lost sponsors like.
    Wow.

  • ||

    Who called Maher a feminist?? He is about as much of a feminist as he is an aardvark. Men who like women and want them to succeed do not talk about any woman the way he does. This filthy, degrading verbiage used by men to put down women is wrong -- no matter the source or the target. Stick the the issues. Leave the dirty mouth out of it.

    It is wrong whether it emanates from the left or the right.

  • ||

    I called Maher a feminist. While definition of the term is elusive, the bottom line is that to be a feminist one must support the social, economic and political equality of the sexes. Maher does. Using words like cunt and twat doesn't exclude you from the ranks of feminism. Especially if it is done for the purpose of advancing feminist causes. You may not agree with the tactic, but it sure is effective.

  • beefonrocks||

    What a load, liberals can justify anything

  • ||

    We liberals can justify anything because we're smarter than you. And until you develop the cognitive and debating skills to show how our justifications are wrong, well, I guess you'll just have to sit there being made fools of by your Republican leaders. Like Rush.

  • ||

    None of the reasons Noah gives are relevant to Limbaugh's comments. The reason his comments are so vile is because he is vilifying Fluke for engaging in behavior that 99% of American women engage in. He's calling all women who use birth control sluts and prostitutes. When Maher or Olbermann or whoever call Clinton or Bachmann sexists names--it's still bad--but they're pointing out how those particular women are different than other women and politicians. Limbaugh is pointing out how he thinks all women are just holes to used by men.

    And just for clarity's sake, Fluke is not asking anyone to pay for her or anyone else's birth control; she's asking Congress to make the evil health insurance company that she pays money to, to do the job she pays them for and cover her prescription medications!!!!!

  • etonian||

    If the two are about even on the misogynist meter why aren't there more conservative talk show hosts/pundits than Rush being cited?Taibbi, Olbermann, Maher, Shultz... and on the right just Rush?

  • ||

    My wife, upon hearing her talk about her birth control pills, blurted out, "What a slut! How much birth control does she need?" my wife is not a right wing talker, but just a woman listening to another woman talk about her sex life in front the entire nation. Get over it... She is a slut. This is all wag the condom stuff.

  • ||

    Liar. Your wife didn't hear her say that because she didn't say anything about "her birth control pills." Also, your "wife" is an idiot. Hormonal birth control pills don't work like that. When you two are gettin' busy, do you stuff a pill up there every time so it can keep her from getting preggers? If so, please stop. You two should not, under any circumstances, procreate.

  • ||

    """"It matters more to society what a person with a big following says than what a person with a small following says" """ I think he's right about that bit. I've never heard on Nick G. and his opinion does not count for much, especially after reading his bit of inet research. try harder.

  • ||

    The biggest difference is, the left constantly criticizes its own for these kinds of gaffes, while the right is always closing ranks and embracing this kind of junk. Look at the comments on all of the articles mentioned if you want evidence.

  • ||

    The left does?
    When? Where?
    Would love more than one or two examples. And that's when they criticize BEFORE being called out on it.

    /crickets

  • ||

    Shanester-- you may be right. But probably not. Letterman and Schultz both apologized ad nauseum. Maher not so much, but then again, he says that Rush's apology was sufficient. How about you come up with more than one example of a Leftie pundit who spent three straight days claiming someone was a slut. Let's start there.

  • ||

    Funny how the Dems have worked everyone over.

    Everyone is talking about Rush and contraception and the inference is that Repugs want to ban the pill (or something like that).

    Nobody is talking about: Jobs, the Economy, that half of Obama's top contributors now have cush jobs with the Federal Govt, Fast & Furious, War-mongering with Iran (so he looks tough), unemployment at 9.1% and actually a loss of 2+ million jobs in January (yes, most seasonal and expected - but NOT reported), and on and on....

    But folks are talking about a radio show host and the pill.

    Check Mate, fools. Played by Obama again!

    What is it after "fool me 1,187 times"?

  • ||

    Shanester--Apparently, Republican's do want to ban the pill. And they also apparently think that a majority of their own daughters, mothers, wives and sisters are sluts who should be forced to choose between making public sex videos and getting health care. That might have something to do with why people with vaginas are interested in the topic. There are quite a few of them in this country, you know. They tend to vote on occasion. Just sayin.

  • ||

    I don't see how calling Palin a c* is any more sexist than referring to a man you don't like as a "dick".

    It's gender specific language; that's not the same thing as slamming the whole gender, or applying double standards to the whole gender.

    Obviously, Rush is in trouble for the underlying sentiment.

    It's right wing spin to claim that it's really about specific words rather than the comments themselves; that spin is designed to change the subject from what he said, to platitudes about the librul media and political correctness.

  • ||

    Flukes: Not testifying,
    speaking to a small group of democrats.

    Flukes: hard core 30 year old activist, enrolled at Georgetown ( her 65K per year tuition paid by free money grants), to force change (she says) on Catholic policies.

    EVERY 8th grader, knows where to find free birth control - on every corner. Planned Parenthood, and other free health clinics pass out contraceptives and medical care.
    extensive medical care for women.

    "Twat?" Are you for real? If "Twat" were all the left called women, you might have a point, but the left repeatedly and constantly calls women vile and ugly words.

    Just about Palin, "slut," whore," and all those slurs about her baby, her children.

    Maher, BTW, while not of Rush's stature, certainly has a following and a national audience, so what exactly is your point again?

    Anyone who pays attention knows the left has no respect for women.

  • ||

    Rush was wrong to call her a slut or a prostitute. She's not attractive enough to be either. "Idiot" would have been more accurate.

    Fact is, this is a seasoned political operative, not some innocent backwards girl.

    She's 30, for christ's sake, not 18.

    The whole thing was a set-up.

    If you're looking for moral equivalency from the left, don't bother.

    Liberal motto: It ain't fascism when we do it.

  • ||

    Tom--You call it a set up. If so, it was brilliant. This 30 yr old "idiot" managed not only to get the leaders of the opposition party to call your mother, sister, wife and daughter a slut, but she also got you defend him. Who is the idiot again?

  • ||

    It was brilliant. The left is brilliant when it comes to rank dishonesty, dyspeptic reasoning, diabolical manipulation and all our tool sets of the chronically mentally ill. You're more right than you know.

    Liberal motto: It ain't fascism when we do it.

    Pablo's motto: What's fascism again?

  • ||

    How dispepticly dishonest of those mean dirty lefties! They pointed out what Rush said and what Romney didn't say. How dare they use free speech like that!

  • ConservativeQueen||

    Is your nickname Nick the "D**K" - if not it should be.

  • ||

    Not sure why liberals feel they must pretend to care that Rush called what's-her-name a slut. I think Nick nailed it. They all suck - red and blue. I can't stand either one of 'em. All the gasping and finger-pointing - it just gets tiresome. A pox on all their houses.

  • ||

    LisaE- Not all liberals care about Rush. But some of us care that the nominees of the party he speaks for don't have the balls to call him out, and thereby tacitly approve of his views. You should too, unless you are ok with the idea that you should be required to post a sex video before you get access to reproductive health care.

  • ||

    Oh come on, Pablo - do you really believe that Rush or any conservative thinks that anyone should be required to post a sex video so they can get birth control? Can we all just quit pretending that the "other" is the embodiment of evil and that black helicopters will appear should this or that side get a little power? What a ridiculous assertion! If I were a candidate I wouldn't spend 10 seconds on this non-issue.

  • ||

    If you were a candidate, you would lose. Who cares what he believes? Rush pissed off just about every woman in America. And Romney pussied out when asked to comment. And yes, if the republicans don't have the guts to stand up to their loons, they are the embodiment of evil. That actually, is exactly how evil takes over a country. Ask yugoslavia. Ask Rwanda. The danger isn't when some fuckwad spews hate. The danger is when everyone else is afraid to call him a fuckwad.

  • ||

    And by the by, by Noah's standards, the biggest megaphone in the world is in Obama's hands. (Though HBO, Maher's home, isn't exactly chopped liver now is it?)

    So let's hear that phone call to apologize for the apopletic left for their comments about all these conservative women, big guy.

    As John Wayne would say, "that'll be the day, Pilgrim."

  • ||

    Tom -- Well, Pilgrim, The Big O wasn't apologizing to Fluke for Rush's lack of manners, now was he? He told her he supported her right to speak to congress without being vilified. And he sure did say that "all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were made don't have any place in the public discourse." Pretty much covers your issue, there. Pilgrim.

  • ||

    A kind word to Nick,Rush,Bill and all other political commemtators. Attack the point,not the person. Thank you.

  • ||

    It ain't the person saying the words that matters, it's the meaning.

    Calling Palin a twat is a personal insult. Limbaugh's direct implication was that all women who use birth control are whores. It's much more likely to be a joke or dismissable when it's a single case vs. a gross generalization.

  • ||

    Here's a recipe for two new parties which would be more in alignment with reality than our present ones.

    Party #1: take social conservatives (please, take them) and mash them together with their country cousins, the soi disant progressives, into a seamless singularity. Since they're equally obsessed with moral and social issues, like missionaries on a mission from god, the fact that they have different gods is irrelevant. Like a marriage between a protestant and catholic, they'll find a compromise allowing them to continue proselytizing to their hearts' desire.

    Party #2: fiscal conservatives from any and all parties, shorn of all pretenses of saving the world. Once we get our economy rolling again--in the absence of the moral posturing from Party #1--that tide would lift all ships including those who need a safety net (one that would be time determinative--i.e., not for bloody ever).

  • ||

    Or we could have two parties: 1) one that recognizes that the world is a complex, dangerous place and that by fluidly balancing often competing rights, we might muddle through without fucking over the least among us; and 2) one that thinks and believes in rigid religious, economic and/or social solutions to everything, like the idiotic idea that a rising tide lifts all ships, including the ones bolted to the ocean floor. Oh wait, we have that.

  • JimmyPete||

    Ever her Michael Savage or Ted Nugent they say disgusting vile statements every night on their radio shows, and Mark Levin is not far behind. All of them try rude sexist and misogynist commentary all the time. Just like Obermann and Maher they really don't figure much in the grand scheme of things. Their statements go out into the ether. But believe me what they say usually is worse than Limbaugh's commentary on Ms. Fluke, and they don't restrict their attacks to public figures. But there is no outrage, because they aren't a driving force in the Republican party like Limbaugh. Look at the few times a Republican has spoken up about Limbaugh, he's gotten flattened , it took barely a day for the apostate to run back with his tail between his leg and genuflect to the titular head of the party. NO one commands that power on either side and the Bigger they are the harder they fall.

  • neocon supreme||

    wow - reason's always been filled with koch suckers, but when did reason become national review?
    the question is - when "the rest of [insert substitute for us/taxpayers/Americans here] to pay for her contraception"?
    ok:
    when did we authorize bush to force "us" to pay for invading iraq for imaginary weapons of mass destruction? (reading reason you'd think libya was a war crime - ok - but iraq was a 'necessary evil' or 'inevitable and unavoidable' - i guess a war without dead soldiers is a war not worth 'fighting' for, or launching)
    when did we authorize the local, state and federal governments to force "us" to pay for everyone else's education? (which is what vouchers do, by the way - if you want true freedom, refund property taxes for those who go to private school - how many republocrats would do that, i wonder?)

  • neocon supreme||

    when did we authorize the federal government to force "us" to pay for murdering and torturing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, particularly women and children, just because they happened to be located in the same region as people who "hate our freedom"?
    when did we authorize the federal government to force "us" to pay for wiretapping and spying on millions of AMERICAN CITIZENS and torturing and murdering AMERICAN CITIZENS, because a republican congress backed by you refused to do anything about it? (democrats are ignored here as ineffectual, a priori)
    when did we authorize any government to force us to pay for government sponsored priviledges of limited liability, liability caps (see: BP oil spill), intellectual "property" (something that "libertarian" kurt loder supports - michael medved writes better movie reviews), no-bid contracts and other horseshit?

  • neocon supreme||

    when did we authorize any government to take money against our consent, to pay for things we don't like, ever?
    see how that works?

    government only "works" when it governs by consent. when it funds itself through theft (directly, like an income tax on its citizens, as opposed to indirectly, like killing native americans and selling the land to pay for more death and destruction), it can only be legitemate when those governmed consent to being robbed. in other words, only unanimous consent works - but a government of unanimous consent isn't a government at all - it's a private club, that you can enter, and leave - anytime - on terms agreeable to you.

  • neocon supreme||

    "limited government", if there ever was a dumber oxymoron, cannot work. and yet here you sit, continuing to back it, outraged by backing 'contraception', when the same government bombs and murders millions for nothing. "but limited government doesn't include that" - show me a government that does only what it's limited to do, and i'll show you tyranny.

    reason's gone off the deep end - apart from worshipping an actual slut, and a pro-genocide whore, neocons reign all over. the rest of you, if you're tired of suckling the koch's teets, should come over to the right side - there may be time for redemption. and that redemption begins with recognizing that the ENTIRE state is optional, not just the bits and pieces you don't like, and the time has come to get rid of it - all of it - once and for all.

  • neocon supreme||

  • neocon supreme||

    recent output from reason/cato includes: ron-paul-the-loon by david harsanyi, flat taxes are good (so that everyone can be fucked over, rather than just the rich who fund "think" tanks like cato), only capital gains taxes are double taxation (but payroll, unemployment and sales taxes - which are enthusiastically endorsed for their "consistent" revenue level - are somehow not, or not as bad!), school vouchers are a good option (NO!), jacob sullum's lets-assassinate-saddam-hussein as a 'foreign policy tool' (can't make this shit up!), jim demint is "libertarian friendly" (especially if you count his credentials as drug warrior, police statist and warmonger!) and BEST OF ALL, the tea party is libertarian (ROTFLMAO - actually, it's a brownshirt movement - see anthony gregory's piece, and their support rejection of ron paul).there must be a better alternative to this.

  • ||

    Neo, it's called suicide. post your address so I can send you a 9mm.

  • neocon 2.0||