Conservatives still hate Sandra Fluke

[R.A.F.]

Sandra Fluke draws the ire of the right because she has managed to wrap numerous annoying qualities into one person. Here are a few:

- She is a perpetual student studying a bunch of useless crap, e.g. Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. She is seemingly a student for the sake of being a student, wasting time and taxpayer dollars. Her continued interest in useless departments encourages the very existence of these departments, which are in themselves a total waste of resources.
- She is a professional agitator. Possessing no real skills or experience, Fluke goes through life without actually contributing anything other than the occasional shrill screed. She decided to attend Georgetown University, in part, to agitate against their religious decision not to cover contraceptive services.
- She pretends to be a victim, when in fact she lives for attention of any type, especially criticism. Being called a slut by Rush Limbaugh was undoubtedly the absolute pinnacle of her "career". Without it, she would've eventually been stuck trying to find work with her useless degrees.
- She possesses an entitled attitude and is a moocher of the highest order.
- She is happy to live her life as a political tool.

Have a cite for any of this garbage, or did you pull it out of your arse?

 

[tyr_13]

Huh? What?

They still think it's all about sex.

 

[RandFan]

Sandra Fluke draws the ire of the right because she has managed to wrap numerous annoying qualities into one person. Here are a few:

- She is a perpetual student studying a bunch of useless crap, e.g. Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. She is seemingly a student for the sake of being a student, wasting time and taxpayer dollars. Her continued interest in useless departments encourages the very existence of these departments, which are in themselves a total waste of resources.
- She is a professional agitator. Possessing no real skills or experience, Fluke goes through life without actually contributing anything other than the occasional shrill screed. She decided to attend Georgetown University, in part, to agitate against their religious decision not to cover contraceptive services.
- She pretends to be a victim, when in fact she lives for attention of any type, especially criticism. Being called a slut by Rush Limbaugh was undoubtedly the absolute pinnacle of her "career". Without it, she would've eventually been stuck trying to find work with her useless degrees.
- She possesses an entitled attitude and is a moocher of the highest order.
- She is happy to live her life as a political tool.

This is so typical of Conservative thinking. If you can't address the arguments go to the ad hominem, and of course, just make stuff up.

 

[tyr_13]

Yes, her seeing something she considered wrong that directly related to her chosen field of study causing her to work diligently and successfully to fix the problem proves that her field and degree is useless, that she has no real skills, and hasn't contributed anything.

You might have a different opinion on what her 'attitude' consists of, and of what 'pretending to be a victim' entails, but what you'll not have is any support for that opinion. She's conducted herself remarkably well through all of this. That your man Rush said something monstrously stupid and got called on it doesn't mean she was trying to be a victim. You've made several other calls about her character, attitude, and motivations that you'll have no support for because you know hardly anything about the woman. She's not exactly an open book well known public figure of long standing.

Have a cite for any of this garbage, or did you pull it out of your arse?

I knew there was a shorter way to say that.

 

[Kaosium]

Given the fallout from the Komen fiasco I don't think it's a loser. Not even close. The "religious institutions" aren't churches, they are performing secular services. And many must provide the services to comply with state law or they provided it already and didn't even know it. It's a silly complaint. Obama handled brilliantly IMO. I respect your opinion and don't think you are without a point. It's just that strategically I think the Dems finally showed a back bone (for once) and stood up to religious silliness.

Perhaps, but what I'm wondering is why they'd make it a convention issue. Perhaps I missed the big rallies or something at Notre Dame and Rutgers, where it excited the college kiddies and they'll all come out to vote again because of this, but what I'm also getting at is whatever you might think of the issue as public policy, it just doesn't seem like the sort of thing they'd want on prime-time TV at their convention. Should I warn my brother in case his forth and sixth-grader want to watch it, like I did at their age?

 

[elbe]

Perhaps, but what I'm wondering is why they'd make it a convention issue. Perhaps I missed the big rallies or something at Notre Dame and Rutgers, where it excited the college kiddies and they'll all come out to vote again because of this, but what I'm also getting at is whatever you might think of the issue as public policy, it just doesn't seem like the sort of thing they'd want on prime-time TV at their convention. Should I warn my brother in case his forth and sixth-grader want to watch it, like I did at their age?

Really? The "war on women" is a big meme for the Democrats this cycle and I fully expect them to continue that narrative. Keep it in the spotlight to win as much of the female vote as possible.

The Republicans aren't doing a particularly good job of countering it; I think the party is losing control over it's members (they did so well at toeing the line just a couple years back). I don't know whether or not that will cost them undecided voters.

 

[Morrigan]

They still think it's all about sex.

Even if it were about sex, I repeat: "Huh? What?"

 

[mikedenk]

This is so typical of Conservative thinking. If you can't address the arguments go to the ad hominem, and of course, just make stuff up.

The topic is conservative "hate" of Fluke. Much of the disgust is personal in nature. I don't care for Fluke's message and I don't care for her personally. Democrats are holding her up as some sort of victim who randomly wandered into this controversy, when in fact she has been, by intention and of her own accord, a political figure all along. As a political figure she is subject to judgements about her character just like any of them.

Regarding pulling stuff out of my "arse", no worries there as I have a keen mind for understanding the thought process of liberals like Fluke. You could call me an anthropologist of sorts - over the years I have become quite familiar with their common delusions and most cherished shibboleths. A cite for any of this garbage you say? Any of it? Alright, what's first on the old list here... lemme see... ah yes, "She is a perpetual student studying a bunch of useless crap, e.g. Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies".

 

[Kaosium]

Really? The "war on women" is a big meme for the Democrats this cycle and I fully expect them to continue that narrative. Keep it in the spotlight to win as much of the female vote as possible.

The Republicans aren't doing a particularly good job of countering it; I think the party is losing control over it's members (they did so well at toeing the line just a couple years back). I don't know whether or not that will cost them undecided voters.

Aha! I get it now, makes sense of a lot of things actually. I dunno if that's the best demographic for the Dems to attempt to mine more votes from if that's the case. Looks like they'll be headed into their convention down by ten or so.

 

[jj]

Aha! I get it now, makes sense of a lot of things actually. I dunno if that's the best demographic for the Dems to attempt to mine more votes from if that's the case. Looks like they'll be headed into their convention down by ten or so.

Well, since the Republikers (I can't bring myself to call them republicans) have declared war on women, pointing that out is going to be rather hard to refute.

 

[Caper]

This is so typical of Conservative thinking. If you can't address the arguments go to the ad hominem, and of course, just make stuff up.

I don't know if he made anything up. Pretty good observation really.

 

[Kaosium]

Well, since the Republikers (I can't bring myself to call them republicans) have declared war on women, pointing that out is going to be rather hard to refute.

I thought they declared war on Iraq! Kicked everyone else out who wondered if they were thinking it all the way through? Now they want women too? Greedy bastards!

 

[RandFan]

The topic is conservative "hate" of Fluke. Much of the disgust is personal in nature. I don't care for Fluke's message and I don't care for her personally. Democrats are holding her up as some sort of victim who randomly wandered into this controversy, when in fact she has been, by intention and of her own accord, a political figure all along. As a political figure she is subject to judgements about her character just like any of them.

Your list was nonsense. Factually wrong. That the disgust is personal doesn't excuse the fallacy. What she did wasn't an attempt to get free stuff for herself. She was making the case that for many of her peers inexpensive condoms wasn't the prime solution and that there were real medical problems that the program could help mitigate or cure. Sadly the idiots at the GOP and Limbaugh couldn't just let her slip in and out unnoticed. She would have been forgotten in a day of her testimonry if A.) the GOP had just let her speak when she was first suggested by the Dems and B.) Limbaugh had kept his idiotic pie hole shut.

Oh, don't believe me? Who else testified when she was denied? No one knows or gives a ****. This was an unforced error by the GOP and they ought to grow a spine and realized they ****** up for idiotic reasons. If you care about your blood pressure don't get pissed at the dems for the stupid actions of the GOP. None of them are going to buy that nonsense.

Regarding pulling stuff out of my "arse", no worries there as I have a keen mind for understanding the thought process of liberals like Fluke. You could call me an anthropologist of sorts - over the years I have become quite familiar with their common delusions and most cherished shibboleths. A cite for any of this garbage you say? Any of it? Alright, what's first on the old list here... lemme see... ah yes, "She is a perpetual student studying a bunch of useless crap, e.g. Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies".

That's all well and good but doesn't obviate the fact that your list has no basis in fact. BTW: Just because you call her studies useless doesn't make it so. That's argument by assertions. It's another fallacy. You are entitled to an opinion but GOP propaganda and bald assertions are not at all compelling.

 

[Caper]

That's all well and good but doesn't obviate the fact that your list has no basis in fact. BTW: Just because you call her studies useless doesn't make it so. That's argument by assertions. It's another fallacy. You are entitled to an opinion but GOP propaganda and bald assertions are not at all compelling.

Not useless for her... she is going to parlay Limbaugh's gaffe into a career. But for most of the other people coming out with degrees in some of this stuff. It's just a MASSIVE bill, with almost no job prospects.

 

[Megalodon]

The topic is conservative "hate" of Fluke. Much of the disgust is personal in nature. I don't care for Fluke's message and I don't care for her personally. Democrats are holding her up as some sort of victim who randomly wandered into this controversy, when in fact she has been, by intention and of her own accord, a political figure all along. As a political figure she is subject to judgements about her character just like any of them.

Regarding pulling stuff out of my "arse", no worries there as I have a keen mind for understanding the thought process of liberals like Fluke. You could call me an anthropologist of sorts - over the years I have become quite familiar with their common delusions and most cherished shibboleths. A cite for any of this garbage you say? Any of it? Alright, what's first on the old list here... lemme see... ah yes, "She is a perpetual student studying a bunch of useless crap, e.g. Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies".

You and your histrionics are a prime example that her field of study is not only not useless, but sorely needed.

 

[RandFan]

Not useless for her... she is going to parlay Limbaugh's gaffe into a career. But for most of the other people coming out with degrees in some of this stuff. It's just a MASSIVE bill, with almost no job prospects.

I don't think that is true at all. It's hard to prove a negative but everything I find shows that the mere fact of graduating college makes on at least twice as likely to find a job than someone who hasn't.

Since I can't prove a negative and in the face of the evidence that I did provide, do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Specifically, the unemployment rate for college graduates dropped to 3.9 percent from 4.0 percent over the past month.

The national rate is 8.3.

Let me know what you find because as it is I'm not at all convinced of your claim.

 

[Megalodon]

Not useless for her... she is going to parlay Limbaugh's gaffe into a career. But for most of the other people coming out with degrees in some of this stuff. It's just a MASSIVE bill, with almost no job prospects.

Really? All my friends who did gender studies are gainfully employed in their area. But I suppose it might be different in the US.

 

[Caper]

I don't think that is true at all. It's hard to prove a negative but everything I find shows that the mere fact of graduating college makes on at least twice as likely to find a job than someone who hasn't.

What courses would they be in? That's important. I'm talking about students graduating in the humanities.

Also... the article you linked talked about twice as likely as people with just high school. Of course someone motivated to take on the debt and smart enough to finish college is going to be more likely to get a job.

The college degree helps for sure.... a degree in the humanities... not near as much. I think almost half of graduates in those fields end up in a job that does not require it.

 

[RandFan]

What courses would they be in? That's important. I'm talking about students graduating in the humanities.

Also... the article you linked talked about twice as likely as people with just high school. Of course someone motivated to take on the debt and smart enough to finish college is going to be more likely to get a job.

The college degree helps for sure.... a degree in the humanities... not near as much. I think almost half of graduates in those fields end up in a job that does not require it.

This post doesn't help me one iota. I'm really sorry but what I need are numbers. I'm not convinced by your claims and explanations. I cited the statistic. If you think these folks are outliers you need to demonstrate that and to what extent. Otherwise there is nothing I can do with your post.

 

[Hawk one]

What courses would they be in? That's important. I'm talking about students graduating in the humanities.

Also... the article you linked talked about twice as likely as people with just high school. Of course someone motivated to take on the debt and smart enough to finish college is going to be more likely to get a job.

The college degree helps for sure.... a degree in the humanities... not near as much. I think almost half of graduates in those fields end up in a job that does not require it.

I wasn't expecting you to actually do what RandFan requested of you, and provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims. Instead, I expected more claims without any evidence behind it.

You did not disappoint me.