Good analogy!
Posted on 03/05/2012 8:21:37 AM PST by Skeez
Fluke has been called a slut. Not only for sleeping herself through law school, but for pimping herself off as some kind of “reproductive rights” expert. But today I received an email from someone who claims to be from Georgetown stating that Sandra Fluke really isn’t who she says she is. That is heterosexual, and that she is in fact gay.
I have no idea if the email is real or fake. I don’t care if she’s gay or not. Having family members who are gay I’m not homophobic. The email headers check out and it appears legit. The writer states she knows this because, “We have been intimate, I know she hasn’t been with a man since I’ve known her”.
She further states that Fluke was “recruited” to testify, or rather act, as though she was at risk of having unprotected sex with men. So the obvious question is “Why is Fluke testifying to something she would never need?” Is that not indeed lying to congress?
So then maybe she’s not a slut after all, but simply a liar and a fake?
Again, have no idea if this is true, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it were. Wouldn’t be the first time liberals manufactured a character.
UPDATE: In 2010 The Woman Lawyers Association of Los Angeles cited Fuke as a 2010 Public Interest Grant Recipient.
Fluke has been called a slut. Not only for sleeping herself through law school, but for pimping herself off as some kind of “reproductive rights” expert. But today I received an email from someone who claims to be from Georgetown stating that Sandra Fluke really isn’t who she says she is. That is heterosexual, and that she is in fact gay.
I have no idea if the email is real or fake. I don’t care if she’s gay or not. Having family members who are gay I’m not homophobic. The email headers check out and it appears legit. The writer states she knows this because, “We have been intimate, I know she hasn’t been with a man since I’ve known her”.
She further states that Fluke was “recruited” to testify, or rather act, as though she was at risk of having unprotected sex with men. So the obvious question is “Why is Fluke testifying to something she would never need?” Is that not indeed lying to congress?
So then maybe she’s not a slut after all, but simply a liar and a fake?
Again, have no idea if this is true, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it were. Wouldn’t be the first time liberals manufactured a character.
UPDATE: In 2010 The Woman Lawyers Association of Los Angeles cited Fuke as a 2010 Public Interest Grant Recipient.
Seems Fluke is at the very least a celebrated activist with close ties to feminist causes as well with the LGBTQ, or lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and queer and questioning groups.
UPDATE: More on Fluke at Pat Dollard’s blog. Turns out she’s a 30 year old activist.
bump dat
Rachel MadCow
you ruined my lunch, LOL
Now even Rush...who ought to know better. He can't use words the left uses...unfortunate but true.
So if we're paying Georgetown sluts for recreational activity, why aren't we subsidizing Georgetown men visiting Rub and tugs? Both are sex, both are about release without a child. What's the difference?
I guessed her as a homo from the start.
Perhaps her next fight will be for tax funded strap-ons.
As predicted....will wait a couple of days for more of her ‘lovers’ to come out before declaring her a total fake.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2854240/posts?page=41#41
>> “Perhaps her next fight will be for tax funded strap-ons.” <<
.
Gosh, a piece of an old shovel handle should do!
.
I don’t know about queer, but definitely fugly.
After viewing the entire hearing on c-span, it’s clear that Ms. Fluke did not misrepresent herself. She made it clear that she’s an activist advocate speaking for others. As such she’s very probably over-reaching, but she did make one point that seems to be overlooked in all the subsequent furor.
There are some women with serious legitimate medical problems (e.g. tumors and seizures) that can be controlled only by taking certain (probably expensive) prescription contraceptive medications - not for contraception, but for unrelated medicinal value these drugs happen to provide. It would be good if we could address this issue narrowly, without accepting financial responsibility for recreational contraception.
For any who wish to know the facts of her testimony, here is the link:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HealthandC
Well, when you’re plain faced and built like middle linebacker, and no man who isn’t drunk, desperate, or himself butt ugly will take a second look at you, where’s a girl to turn?
She certainly looks it. Reminds me of a young ‘David Brock’. . .or something close.
I suspect that if Ms. Fluke was applying for a job as a female impersonator, she wouldn’t get the job. Enough said...
I won't argue. As long as it's FREE. Do I have to go to Georgetown, and will the government pay my travel costs?
at that point it is not a contraception it is not used to prevent birth but towards other treatments.
This was NEVER about contraception, this is and always was about bluring abortion into contraception.
Abortion is not a cancer treatment for women, abortion is not a means of regulation monthly cycles or menapause treatment.
This is about forcing companies to provide abortion regardless of choice. You do not need to be a religious organization to not provide abortion services to employees. ANYONE should be able to assert their moral right to refuse such coverage.
Government should not be in the business of impossing leftists’ amorality.
actually she did.
she gave anecdotes that were heresay on heresay.
It was a last minute witness bait and switch by democrats. She had ZERO expertise in the area. ZERO knowledge of the medical issues.
To argue she did not lie is an indefensible position.
Good analogy!
There is nothing to discuss. The author surrendered by using the Left’s euphemism for perversity in the very title.
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.