Posted on 03/05/2012 5:58:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Sandra Fluke is now the official, media-designated victim of woman-hating Republicans, with an assist from Rush Limbaugh.
Where have we seen this soap opera before? That's an important question, because this is the Big Play of the scapegoating left. It's pure, standard Alinsky, and they do it over and over again.
That's why it is important for normal, decent Americans to learn how it works. Once you recognize it you'll see it done over and over again. Conservatives who can't predict the radical left are losers. As in football, we have to study the playbook of the opposition. It's the first step toward beating them. They are more ruthless and coordinated than conservatives are. We are smarter but less coordinated.
Ms. Fluke is long-time feminist activist who graduated in 2003 from Cornell's "Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies." In the decade since then Ms. Fluke has become a political professional for a huge range of feminist causes. She has worked for the (Democrat) Manhattan Borough Taskforce on Domestic violence and
"numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions... As the 2010 recipient of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant, she researched, wrote, and produced an instructional film on how to apply for a domestic violence restraining order in pro per. ... Through Georgetown's clinic programs, Sandra has proposed legislation ... represented victims of domestic violence ... Sandra is the Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law, and served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women's Legal Alliance."
All of which is fine with me. What's not fine is lending oneself to a planted political stunt in collusion with the vicious radical left. But that is exactly what Ms. Fluke has done.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
or, a democrat... wait, never mind, she openly professes that.
Oh, bull. Rush is waaaay too smart to fall for bait. The Dems dared to have an ugly, smug slut go up and testify on Capitol Hill and Rush saw it clearly and called it clearly. My only beef with Rush is that he apologized.
It does NOT pay off for Dems. The public is not fooled. Only the lefties and the media think they won anything. People, stop falling for this nonsense. The public sees through this and sees what a phony Sandra Lesbiano Fluke is. No one believed Anita Hill. Only the media and the lefty cohorts. No one believes Fluke except the same fools.
I don’t think so. Whenever someone left or moderate has brought this up to me, I just ask them, “If you want money for sex, what are you?”
I then use the opportunity to question the constitutionality of having the president dictate to private companies and churches what serves they provide and at what cost.
In the case of Carbonite online backup, do they want the government to demand they offer free backup or dictate the price or maybe the government will just provide free (tax payer paid) computer backups. Drop Carbonite and use Crashplan.com
With that kind of background, if she turns out to be a Lesbian, I am going to laugh my ass off.
She says “we” in describing the poor pitiful sluts at Georgetown Law School. She says they need $1,000 a year or $3,000 for 3 years. Are you working for David Brock?
Quote: “Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.” From her testimony.
Where does it say “we”? Where does she ever say she’s having sex.
Rush stepped in it.
So she is arguing from the point of being a “Georgetown Law Student for Reproductive Justice’ and she is arguing that they be PAID to have means NOT TO REPRODUCE!
????????????????????????????????????????????
The saddest damn thing is that in today’s world, that makes sense...
Are you a “concern troll”?
That was my take on it too. The Alinsky tactic the left used on Rush was to get him (mean bully) to “attack” (using crude and hurtful words) the “victim” (female just wanting better health coverage for other young females). This is the classic “public sympathizing with underdog” tactic to win the people to your side of a political argument.
Often, this tactic will cross over into violence, where “peaceful” demonstraters deliberately provoke the other side into violence against them, winning voter sympathy.
Only way to fight it is to expose it, but the media, of course, supresses the reality, and instead reinforces the perception the leftists created.
They should just charge a small surcharge instead of giving it away for free.
As much activity as Fluke apparently is giving out, she might make a lot of money.
Yes, I am concerned about the future of this country. I am concerned about the future for my children.
I am concerned that Rush shot his mouth off before he really had the facts and that gives the demons on the left an advantage.
Let's see what he says today. If he goes further on the attack then I'll be glad to be wrong. If he's recalcitrant then we'll know even he realizes she used this as a set up to get some one to attack.
You make very good points.
I was listening live when Rush called her a slut and thought “uh-oh, he’s stepped in it now. You can’t ever, as a conservative, call a woman a slut.”
There is zero doubt she is promoting promiscuity.
Are you for that or against it?
When did you stop beating your wife?
A tautology?
Lame, dude.
BTW, my wife died from an aneurysm in 2000. My whole life, I wanted nothing more than to be united with a woman who truly loved me and I could unconditionally love. It has been nothing more than a long, dark night since.
So out of common decency, please stay on track.
re: There is zero doubt she is promoting promiscuity.
Are you for that or against it?
_________________________________
Let’s get some things clear:
IN Sandra Fluke’s testimony,
1) She did not say that SHE HERSELF needed thousands/year in contraception.
2) She did say that others did and are having a hard time paying for such lifestyle.
3) She was speaking on behalf of those others.
Therefore, the question should be this -— what do you call someone who speaks for others to be sexually promiscuous at tax payer’s expense?
Promiscuity is side issue. Latching onto that is a waste of time.
Good analysis.
The government is no more obligated to pay (or in fact obligated to pay by regulation that requires a private party to pay) for one particular lifestyle more than any other.
Grandmothers like to knit. Doesn’t in any way oblige the government to support them.
If you call for the government to subsidize or regulate behavior, then you are calling for the government to CONTROL behavior!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.