Posted on 03/03/2012 5:51:23 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Looking at a sample of Miami media this morning, and it is easy to see the appalling bias rampant in the local left wing media. I will be conducting a boycott of my own, noting the names of some prominent advertisers and letting them know I don't like the leftist bias at channels 4, 6, 7, and 10.
I rarely pick up the rags Herald and Sentinel....but they're undoubtedly joining in on the lies about Rush.
Instead, they join the White House in distorting Rush's words and attacking his freedom of speech. None of these "news" organizations reported Bill Maher's hate speech against Sarah Palin. They didn't report when the Democrat candidate for governor of California called Meg Whitman a whore...but suddenly they're VERY interested in Rush.
The bias makes me want to vomit.
I urge you all to join me in holding the LOCAL MEDIA in your town accountable for their bias, too. This is only going to get worse through election day--the goal is to distort and shut down conservative speech. We cannot let it succeed.
Breitbart announces at CPAC he’s going to vet Obama; suddenly he’s gone...and the leftwing media, which allowed Obama a free ride four years ago...turns on Limbaugh.
It’s going to be a long and difficult election year.
Is the right being warned?
The Left is used to getting their way - trotting out baby killers (abortionists/pro-”choicers”), homosexuals (Barney Frank, et al), murderers (Ted Kennedy), rapists (Bill Clinton), lawbreakers, corrupt people of every stripe (the Chicago mob for starters), and the list goes on ..... and all of these people are praised, feted, held up for public regard without one snippet of shame or sense that what these people do/have done is WRONG.
So, this female goes before the public and states that she needs $3,000 of birth control during law school (i.e. has the morals of an alley cat) AND she has the nerve, the absolute nerve, to want people who DO have morals and scruples to pay for her screwing around ..... and Rush does the “unthinkable” ..... he calls her a slut and a prostitute. He tells the ‘Empress’ Fluke she has no clothes, he calls a spade a spade .... and the Left/media goes nuts. Someone who, in their minds, should be glorified and held up as an example for little girls everywhere is, when you get right down to it, a common variety slut. Oh the horror. Right ON Rush - keep telling the truth.
Rush, sluts, Romney (What happened to Paul .. he disappear?), Santorum, obamacare, etc., etc., blah blah blah.
Sherriff Joe has exposed the fraud on three fronts, but feared actually accusing him (GREAT disappointment, there)
and the kneepadderrs continue sucking ...
Is Limbaugh running for office? The free press attacking the free press over a woman’s “right to speak out?” Am I missing something here?
Saul Alinsky baby.
Rush will resonate with Americans hugh.
El Rushbo has the nack, for saying what everyone is thinking but too politically correct to actually say.
Americans weren’t always cowed and too timid to speak. We had a thing called “free speech” once.
I’ll counter the local bias here in Michigan when I see it. Sandra does not speak for this woman! All I heard Rush say was that Sandra was asking the taxpayers to pay her to have sex, which is true. Since when is having sex an essential health care item? She could abstain for free, but she claims she has “no choice”. If she can’t afford sex, she should do without. Or, as Dr. Laura would say, at least charge for it.
Rush is so good at goading the Leftists, and the funny thing is that they comply so willingly!
This is how the media works. When a liberal says outrageous things its blacked out. When a conservative does, they go on the attack like sharks in a blood filled tank.
Breitbart said it best when he said something like he “didn’t hate hate Democrats, Obama, Pelosi so much as he hated the media. Because if they were ever fair in their coverage between conservatives and liberals, Obama would never have been elected and Democrats wouldn’t even be a viable political party.”
Editorials and commentaries abound across the nation telling everyone how immoral, low class, etc the pubbies have become.
Bill maher, donor of $ 1,000,000.00 to obummer, calls Sarah Palin a twat, a c*nt, a ni###### lovin' whore and many more unspeakable quotes, and the media is silent, or even worse, excuses him by saying, "Oh well, he's a comedian and it's just fun or satire".
Pfffft!
Rush does this ever few years. He knows how to get those drama sluts in a lather.
His ratings will shoot through the roof on Monday, he wont back down, and the Left will remember they are behind on episodes of Family Guy or find some new viral video to zone out on, and will go back to their caves
He’s the CIC (Campaigner-in-Chief).
Be careful what you ask for.
I can just see this happening. The government gives out free contraceptives for a few years. All is fine till those getting the free stuff get pregnant. The female is fined for getting pregnant. Then the government orders her to abort the child. They can do that then since they are supplying the free BC and she didn’t use it properly. The female’s body is now owned by the government. Women’s lib makes a full circle.
It is difficult for me to imagine any woman who would get up before a group of people and declare that she needs $3K to allow her to satisfy her lusts and not get pregnant. Frankly, though, I hope that she doesn't get pregnant because I'd not appreciate her spreading her gene pool any farther. If her parents are ordinary, God fearing people, they must be appalled and very embarrassed by her actions. I suspect that they had a hand in fashioning her attitude in these matters, though.
You are exactly right. This is about CONTROLLING reproductive health. Obama would love to implement China's one-child policy here. He knows he can't yet do it outright, so he has to try a stealth method. I do believe that this is exactly what all of this hoopla is about. Yes, it's a religious liberty issue. Yes, it is a First Amendment issue. Yes, Obama is declaring war on the Catholic Church. And yes, he wants abortion enshrined as not a choice, but an obligation.
It is difficult for me to imagine any woman who would get up before a group of people and declare that she needs $3K to allow her to satisfy her lusts and not get pregnant.
Planned Parenthood picks these women out when they are young undergraduates and grooms them for roles just such as this. (See Abby Johnson's book "Unplanned") It is happening to one of my young relatives right now at a public university, despite my best efforts. I agree, the lack of shame is shocking.
I listened to Rush Friday and it was pretty obvious this was set up as a diversion to the forged BC and other docs.
It appears that Rush and Co. know the left plans on orchestrating race riots and they mistakenly believe they can somehow stop it if they ignore talking about certain things.
BTTT! And he ain't the only one:
Friday, March 02, 2012
The Pursuit of Horniness and the Georgetown Skank
By Robert W. Godwin, Ph.D (forensic clinical psychologist)
".....There are necessary truths accessible to our reason. To the extent that one denies truths that compel our assent -- such as that the world is intelligible and that truth exists -- one is floating about the earth untethered to anything but the winds of opinion, fashion, preference -- in a word, desire.
What do these ethereal thoughts have to do with, like, anything -- you know, important stuff, like whether it is true that the Constitution forces us to subsidize the hysteromaniacal sex life of some Georgetown skank?
Glad you raised that point, because it is a perfect example of the distinction between a legal system rooted in principle and one based upon getting laid.
Call me an old-fashioned liberal, but it never occurred to me that one of the state's enumerated powers was to provide me abundant sex without consequences. Indeed, if the government were in charge of sex, then I'm sure that all women would look like DMV clerks, or maybe Miss Fluke herself (that's the DMV clerk on the left).
I know what you're thinking: Bob, you silly assoul, you never attended law school! What makes you think you understand the Constitution?
Fair question, but I've done some research, and it turns out that this Constitution thingy wasn't actually ratified by the Harvard Law School faculty.
Rather, it was presented for approval to the people, who are its author and its source. Our Constitution is sovereign over the people only to the extent that we are sovereign over it.
I know. Weird!
And of course, we can only be sovereign over it to the extent that we are sovereign over ourselves. But it sounds to me like the Georgetown Skank has no such auto-sovereignty, because you've got to be either really stupid or quite the bimbo -- or maybe just Paris Hilton -- to spend a thousand dollars a year on birth control.
I'll be frank: back when I was in college, I was never that lucky. Nor is it any measure of Cupid's favor to end up in the sack with the indiscriminate Miss Fluke. Rather, if one attends Georgetown -- or maybe just lives in the greater Georgetown area -- that is inevitable.
In fact, having sex three times a day for three years is beyond lucky. Rather, it's a compulsion.
So does Obamacare cover the Georgetown Skank's sexual addiction? Because if she doesn't get treated, I don't know how she's ever going to graduate. Unless she's sleeping with her professors. Right.
About the question of law reducing to libido, or desire. That's no gag, because as Arkes points out, constitutional law took a one hundred eighty degree turn with the Griswold case of 1965.
In fact, you might say that it took a three hundred sixty degree turn, in the sense that it represented a "new start" for the forces that had been trying to undermine the Constitution for decades.
Griswold is only superficially about birth control. Rather, it simply used that as a pretext to usher in a new epoch of state intrusion into our lives. As Arkes explains, Griswold and Roe have become "the new touchstones in our jurisprudence," to such an extent that "any theory, any doctrine, of the law" which yields "the 'wrong' result" is "instantly marked as suspect or invalid."
In other words, instead of using the powers of deduction to apply constitutional principles to individual cases, we have a new standard that insists that we must toss out the principle if it clashes with the desires of the new vulgarians. For example, if I don't want the states to legislate abortion, then I conjure a constitutional reason to make it illegal for states to do so. That's what you call conjurisprudence.
Arkes says that "It could hardly be an overstatement then to say that Griswold and Roe mark the center, the core, of liberal jurisprudence in our own time."
The irony, of course, is that in reality the state -- the state, of all things! -- couldn't care less about your privacy. For example, it can reach into your wallet and force you to buy products you don't want and enter contracts you'd rather not.
But even leaving Obamacare to the side, have you ever been audited by the IRS? I mean, not over some small error, but the full proctological exam? That's when you find out that your privacy is a joke. And, for that matter, that you are guilty until proven innocent.
Another irony is that, in order to force the New Deal and Great Society upon us, the court had to take an entirely different tack prior to Griswold. Otherwise, how does one justify the huge expansion of state power to regulate every aspect of our economic behavior?
Protest to FDR that you have a right to privacy -- for example, that you are free to charge as much as you want for a f*cking chicken -- and you would have been arrested and tried.
But choking your chicken?
No, that's a poor example. Statists want to get involved in that activity as well."
<>
Facebook:
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.
