Saturday, March 3, 2012

Joke of the Day: Sandra Fluke

Sorry if I do not take the Left's outrage
over Rush's comments seriously...
Q.  How many Sandra Flukes does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Q.  How many Sandra Flukes does it take to screw in a light bulb?



Meanwhile:  Of course this outrage over Rush is just one sided. Bill Maher reveals himself as a classless fool.  And do you hear any of these feminist hypocrites defending Sarah Palin?  I wish Bill Maher and Andrew Sullivan would run into Todd Palin in an alley some day.  


Update:  Here is President Barack Obama referring to the Tea Party as "tea baggers."  Stay classy Mr. President.  
Update II:  Serr8d's response.
Update III:  Jeff Goldstein's week in review and George Orwell responds.
Update IV:  SNL's James Carville...that is a pretty fair depiction of lefty pundits.
Update V:  The Other McCain notes current events.
Update VI:  Don Surber comments about Maher.
Update VII:  The proper response to the left...
Update VIII:  The Other McCain:  If we can't call her the "s" word, what about this...
Update IX:  Kirstin Powers says liberals also need to hold their own accountable...
Update X:  Nick Gillespie:  A pox on all their houses...
Update XI:  The hypocrisy, it burns...
Update XII:  It has been a trap all along...and George was in on it.  

15 comments:

  1. Where's the Obama apology to the Tea Party?
    He called them "tea-baggers" in an interview.
    See http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/04/obama-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-smear/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Jonathan Alter’s “The Promise: President Obama, Year One,” President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills “set the tenor for the whole year … That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.”

      Michelle Malkin link

      Thank you. I will update above.

      Delete
  2. Provoking an apology from Limbaugh via scolding is about as likely to succeed as getting one out of Maher or Sullivan was.

    Next up are the continued boycotts and attacks on Limbaugh's advertisers. I understand that several have bailed already. I wonder how this will play out next week.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I stand corrected. He apologized. Rush is a better man than Maher or Sullivan. But we knew that already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or just a weaker one.

      Respond with as much indignation as you want. The left (and apparently, the middle) already did as well. But it looks like there is some political fall-out to this, and that has become the bigger development.

      Maybe we should just personalize this, along with every event like it, and say that everyone should apologize for everything regardless of party or issue and to hell with politics. But then, Limbaugh wouldn't have had a career all these years if that were the case.

      Be honest about it. He offends just as much, but just laughs a lot less. He does it with innuendo because when he comes right out and says what he means... well, you saw what just happened.

      Delete
    2. Or just a weaker one. Go ahead and wear your Sullivanism on your sleeve, Ritmo. You're a joke regarding that to me now. I will continue to point it out here and anywhere else.

      The man was an intellectual fraud when came to Palin. I think he knows it too and hopes that people will one day forget about it.

      Delete
    3. Your obsession with Andrew Sullivan is becoming its own joke. And attacking me for ever reading him? You might as well attack someone for eating at McDonalds.

      In any event, I was going with your comparison to Maher. But I can address your Sullivan obsession.

      Are you autistic? Do you not understand how certain positions and people become unpopular? Whatever Sullivan's alleged foibles, he's a much more widely respected and successful writer than Palin is a politician. Whatever bounds of taste he supposedly breached in asking for medical records that are routinely released, his general interest in empiric evidence is only heresy to someone too clueless to know that autopsy results take time. You work in the chemical industry and don't realize that? For serious? I can see someone without that expertise making such a mistake, but you are calling into question your own hold on reality and ability to make sense of your own experience and (I would have thought) expertise when you let conspiratorializing get in the way of that. Somehow Sullivan's conspiratorializing is more offensive? Well, at least he understands the importance of knowledge over emotion, even if he doesn't always practice it. I would have thought you would, too.

      EBL's a good egg and politically savvy, in spite of (because of?) his/her ability to hold his/her own strong opinions without being offended by the fact that those of others might differ. I'd worry about offending him/her with my response here, but I think we get that about each other.

      You should learn the value of that, as well.

      Separate out your own opinions from those of others and broader general opinion. Maybe it will teach you to do the same when it comes to people who used to respect you.

      Being an unwitting dupe in someone else's cause is unbecoming of you, Chickie. It is sad to see you sink this far. We all have our own opinions, and it is unfortunate to see you lose the ability to distinguish yours or mine from someone else's.

      Your grouping of two people based on the fact that one had an idea that you didn't like (and the other one merely read or debated the merits of it) is very fascist. Will burning books be next on your agenda?

      Delete
    4. Ritmo: My obsession isn't with Sullivan. You know that my beef with you stems from your spirited defenses of his methods regarding Palin. In that sense you fly in the face of what EBL writes here. I still have all those inks of your disgusting remarks (well, not as bad as Cedarford's) about her over there. What really set me off Ritmo, was when after I came over to your place and tried to make good, you had the audacity to write that blog post in effect saying "I didn't mean any of what I wrote previously." I despise such disingenuity Ritmo. But now you have gone and taken your blog private and so I can't prove my assertions with links to your own words.

      Delete
    5. My blog privacy setting has nothing to do with that. I won't get into details but let's just say that something that creeped you out regarding J's methods... well, I needed to guard myself against something similar that had recently happened. I won't get into who it was or the details beyond that. Not now, at least.

      Anyway, I never said that I never meant anything that I wrote previously. You are imagining that. I might have clarified that I could have been coaxed into a different tone when it came to how discussions proceeded in certain forums. Trooper gets that. His actions and recent feelings epitomize that. TOP is all about conflict. It doesn't matter the substance of the agreement or disagreement. It's about the conflict-driven tone regarding that place, and I was glad after that episode that more of us came to understand and acknowledge that about each other - regardless of our politics.

      As far as making good goes, I thought any of our instances of visiting (and linking) each others' blogs in the past showed as much. That's a sort of goodwill that goes far back from before this whole recent episode of which you speak. I have no idea of why you are misinterpreting that now, why you misinterpreted it then (a few months back) and continue to do so? Am I really saying something that is so difficult to understand?

      I like you and I don't understand why these can't stand out as the salient observations. They seem so to me and to anyone else who knows and/or respects us both. As far as substantive comments from the past go, they are secondary but they are certainly up for debate, if you really want to. But the disclaimer is that my opinions do change over time (as does knowledge generally), so I don't see why you want to suddenly, abruptly keep sticking something to me regarding discussions that go way back from before we ever corresponded as frequently as we did since.

      I hope you will come to understand what I am saying here. I feel I have been trying to say as much, when prompted, for several months. Why do you not believe me or at least ask questions that are direct enough for me to respond to in a clarifying way, if there is something that you find so suddenly troubling? I never disliked you, but I can't understand why you have been acting so irrationally for so many months. What you say here and have said up til now helps, but it certainly doesn't make any more sense to me than whatever I have done made sense to you. Are you sure about the way you are piecing your feelings together?

      Best,

      Ritmo.

      Delete
  4. I think Sarah was a fluke. I get the feeling that everything about her is a lie, including her alleged age. Just my opinion, but Rush shouldn't have apologized. He told the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given Maher had topped him in going after Palin with the C word and they were staging and advertising boycott, it was smart of Rush to do so. We can use it to show what hypocrites they are.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. Maybe she means 23 years needing help with contraception.

      Delete
  6. This Fluke chick is a fucking joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cannot believe people take this story seriously. I wish I could get free ice cream and whiskey, but I have to pay for it.

      Delete

I had to stop Anonymous comments due to spam. But I welcome all legitimate comments. Thanks.