Conservatives still hate Sandra Fluke

[Caper]

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.

But I'm far to lazy right now. I've been up all night. I'm just trying to steer you in the right direction... go make my case for me, post what you find... and let me know I'm right.

 

[Travis]

Condoms cost nothing.

Really? I'm pretty sure most people get charged for them when they try to walk out of the store with them.

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.

First off she's a law student in law school. That takes time. Second off those courses you mentioned are enriching and help make for well rounded people. I took them in college and I'm glad I did.

- 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.

First off, she is only an agitator because there are things in this world that need to be agitated against. If we didn't have agitators we'd still be burning witches when we weren't buying and selling slaves. Secondly, unless you have evidence that her decision to attend Georgetown was to stir up **** I think you had better back off on that claim.

- She pretends to be a victim, when in fact she lives for attention of any type, especially criticism.

She didn't have to pretend anything. She was the victim! She was, remember, just some law student who worked up the nerve to testify on an issue she felt strongly about. And because she dared to try and make the world a better place some radio blowhard went on the air and said some truly horrific stuff about her. If that isn't being victimized I can only conclude we now live in a world where there are no victims.

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.

No, she would have gone on to work with a law firm somewhere. Probably one that focuses on social issues that need addressing.

- She possesses an entitled attitude and is a moocher of the highest order.

Really? That's rich. How dare she be selfless! That makes her an entitled moocher!

- She is happy to live her life as a political tool.

I doubt she will ever be one but should she change course could you give her some tips?

 

[maxpower1227]

So now we are disparaging not just women but all humanities students as well? And people call the GOP the Party of Hate...

 

[Travis]

So now we are disparaging not just women but all humanities students as well? And people call the GOP the Party of Hate...

Well women and humanity students that dare to have opinions and be educated. They're just snotty entitled moochers.

 

[A'isha]

The only reason they're attacking her personally is because they can't actually address any of her arguments. They can't even describe them correctly!

 

[BenBurch]

The only reason they're attacking her personally is because they can't actually address any of her arguments. They can't even describe them correctly!

I can understand the Republican fascination with women's vaginas - they are all a bunch of twats.

 

[Corsair 115]

You are entitled to an opinion ...

I'd rebut that idea with a quote by Harlan Ellison:

We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing.

 

[elbe]

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.

What? Women? It's a remarkably broad demographic to target but with such easy targets as Akin's rape "flub" or Rush calling a college student a slut the Dems are unlikely to lose many women's votes over it.

 

[Tony]

I just don't get conservatism. It's weird.

Hint: Start thinking of it as empty BS designed to appeal to the ignorant and foolish. Once you do, everything they say starts making sense.

 

[Unabogie]

Hint: Start thinking of it as empty BS designed to appeal to the ignorant and foolish. Once you do, everything they say starts making sense.

No, I totally get their politicians. It's the people who run around claiming to care about the deficit yet wholeheartedly supported the Iraq war, the Bush tax cuts, the repeal of Obamacare, and the myriad other ways in which Republicanism explodes the debt. And I really don't get self described "libertarians" who vote for a party that massively expanded the surveillance state and wants to regulate their bodies and marriages based on Christian dogma. And I am dumbfounded by working class schlubs who vote to give the wealthy more tax cuts even as they are told that their own taxes will go up.

And back to the topic here, I really don't get a bunch of "skeptics" going to bat for the Red Beanie Brigade in their Every Sperm is Sacred crusade at the expense of American women.

 

[RandFan]

But I'm far to lazy right now. I've been up all night. I'm just trying to steer you in the right direction... go make my case for me, post what you find... and let me know I'm right.

I'm a generous person. If there were a chance that you were right I might do that. Unfortunately I seriously don't think so.

 

[Mark6]

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.

Law school (which is where she actually is) is a waste of resources?

Well, for me it would have been. For a number of reasons, I'd make a terrible lawyer.

 

[Kaosium]

What? Women? It's a remarkably broad demographic to target but with such easy targets as Akin's rape "flub" or Rush calling a college student a slut the Dems are unlikely to lose many women's votes over it.

That's not quite what I meant. If that demographic is already highly supportive of the ticket there might not be much marginal gain from the appearance (some women simply will not vote Dem) and it might cost support with other possible Dem voters whom it might...irk somewhat. Just a thought, it struck me as a surprising move so I wondered aloud about it.

 

[elbe]

That's not quite what I meant. If that demographic is already highly supportive of the ticket there might not be much marginal gain from the appearance (some women simply will not vote Dem) and it might cost support with other possible Dem voters whom it might...irk somewhat. Just a thought, it struck me as a surprising move so I wondered aloud about it.

I'm just not sure how many people might change their mind against with this tactic, it seems mostly win-win for the Dems.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Sadly the idiots at the GOP and Limbaugh couldn't just let her slip in and out unnoticed.

These pretzels are making me thirsty!



Bolding mine.

 

[Travis]

That's not quite what I meant. If that demographic is already highly supportive of the ticket there might not be much marginal gain from the appearance (some women simply will not vote Dem) and it might cost support with other possible Dem voters whom it might...irk somewhat. Just a thought, it struck me as a surprising move so I wondered aloud about it.

Anyone that would be irked by this is better off voting for the Grand Old Misogynist Party.

 

[marksman]

That's not quite what I meant. If that demographic is already highly supportive of the ticket there might not be much marginal gain from the appearance (some women simply will not vote Dem) and it might cost support with other possible Dem voters whom it might...irk somewhat. Just a thought, it struck me as a surprising move so I wondered aloud about it.

Having Fluke speak -- but not during prime time -- is all win for the Democrats. Her very appearance is likely to make some prominent Republican say something for which they will be called upon to apologize. Her appearance will galvanize much of the base of the party. Nobody else really knows her or cares.

The only downside is if she says something really stupid, but I'm sure her speech will be vetted six ways from Sunday, so that risk is low.

 

[marksman]

Looking over the list of DNC speakers, I don't see many speakers who are going to embarrass or inspire. A couple ddities stand out. Eva Longoria? A speaker from NARAL and one from Planned Parenthood?

I'm sort of interested in what Charlie Crist, Cory Booker (NJ Dems' answer to Chris Christie) and Bill Clinton will have to say. Clinton will have the toughest job, since half the convention hall will still be wishing it was Clinton running rather than Obama, and there's a decent chance Clinton's performance will outshine the nominee's.

Oh, and everyone will be watching Biden's speech for flubs and extemporarneous remarks, but there won't be any.

 

[NotJesus]

Oh, and everyone will be watching Biden's speech for flubs and extemporarneous remarks, but there won't be any.

He'll save those for his interviews.

 

[marksman]

Pretty much. You can't have a teleprompter at an interview.