Ahh, those funny lefties. So powerful. So arrogant. So ignorant. So wrong…all the time.
So what are they doing now?
This non-issue of birth control seems to be a big deal to the left. I am not sure why that is. I do know that it goes back at least to the 1960’s and 1970″s and the whole feminist movement. “I am woman, Hear Me Roar” and all that.
“Obviously”, it made sense for women to get freed up from the “bonds” of motherhood by being able to abort their children or prevent their conception altogether. Because of this they were able to pursue their dreams without constraint.
Those dreams included making a better world for all of us which only they could do since they were nicer and kinder than men. Definitely, some women are nicer and kinder than men. And then we have Nancy Pelosi, many abusive mothers, and several female corporate CEO’s who may not be as nice as feminists had hoped. I guess nothing works right all the time.
It was and continues to be leftists that are the greatest supporters of abortion and who join many conservatives in supporting the use of contraception. Here is the part I don’t understand.
Leftists seem to want those in poverty to have more children. They love for the poor to have more kids so that they will have more voters to support their socialist views because those kids will have to be supported by the government which is what the left wants in the first place because this gives the left even more power. (Sorry for the run on sentence…I was having a mood)
So why do they support more children for the poor at the same time that they support abortion and contraception and want the government to pay for both? This is a dilemma that the left will not address.
Maybe one clue lies in the recent dust-up when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut (when she is really just a moron law student and self-professed free-loader).
Ms. Fluke is a woman who is in law school. She is not poor because the government is paying for her education through a scholarship. She wants to have sex but she wants us to pay for it. In effect, she is a free-loader, relying on the government, which is exactly what the left wants: More people reliant on government.
Now it gets clearer. The left wants the poor to be reliant on government by having more children that taxpayers will have to pay for or by having more conceptions that the government will have to pay to abort. Either way, the poor people having those children or aborting them will be reliant on government.
The left also wants to appease women such as Ms. Fluke who are not poor; who “need” the government for support; and who eventually will be wealthy supporters of the left. The left therefore keeps all women in the flock, wealthy and poor. Wow, that IS a strategy that most of us on the right could never have fathomed.
This strategy is brilliant, not only for its deception but because of the fact that only a few at the top of the leftist pyramid could understand what I just wrote. The rest are being led around by their hippy nose rings by the people who want to control them (and who want to control the rest of us).
Before you start emailing me with hate mail, let me say a couple of things. I am a supporter of birth control for those who find it necessary to control their output and for those who need the medication for actual health reasons. I believe that we all get to choose how many children we can take care of financially, physically or emotionally. That is nobody’s business but the person involved.
However, I am NOT a supporter of having other people pay for my birth control or for raising my children. If I want to have sex (which I do) I should be responsible for any costs involved. Our little fluke law student free-loader wants the rest of us to pay for her fun times. That is unacceptable.
Now we have the next wave of this dust-up. Rush Limbaugh is being castigated for making negative comments about our little law student (a woman of no real repute or purpose that Limbaugh made famous for her fifteen minutes). I agree that his words were not the best. She is more a free-loader than a slut.
One good thing has happened for Mr. Limbaugh as a result of this dust-up. He once again received a great deal of attention.
Three bad things have happened for all of us as a result of this dust-up.
First, apparently Mr. Limbaugh apologized to Ms. Fluke. That upsets me. If I say it and believe it, I should not be apologizing regardless of the external reasons (such as money). Some say his apology was not ‘really” an apology. I don’t care. I don’t think he should have given even the slightest impression that he was apologizing to this free-loader.
The second bad thing that has happened which upsets me is that the elite media is misconstruing one part of Mr. Limbaugh’s statement. Mr. Limbaugh quoted Ms. Fluke who said that it costs a law student $3,000 during law school for contraception. He said that this means that she is having sex three times a day. He was indicating that the cost of a condom is about a dollar and that at that rate, she would have to have sex three times a week to reach the $3,000 mark. Clearly, Ms. Fluke was talking about the cost of the birth control pill, not condoms. Yet, Mr. Limbaugh’s argument is solid.
If I was a woman who has little money except what the government is already giving me to attend law school, I could easily use condoms instead of the pill, unless I had a serious medical issue that required the use of the pill. That would be much cheaper. Or I could ask my sexual partner to contribute to the cost of the pill. Either way, the tax payers aren’t in the mix.
I can’t do anything about any of the first two issues listed here. But the third issue leads me to something I CAN do.
Seven of Mr. Limbaugh’s sponsors have decided to cancel their contracts. The list of seven companies follows:
ProFlowers: They sell flowers via the internet. I wouldn’t buy flowers over the internet anyway and still won’t.
Quicken Loans: I would never take out a loan over the internet anyway, and still won’t.
Sleep Train and Sleep Number: I am sure that they offer wonderful products but not products I would have purchased even before this conflict.
Citrix Systems, Inc.: Given that I have no idea what they do and that I assume they are some kind of computer company, I wouldn’t be doing business with them anyway.
Carbonite: Apparently this company protects my computer by backing it up for quite a bit of money. I have an external hard drive that does the same. I can’t think of a time I would use that company.
Legal Zoom: I believe this is a company that charges money to do simple legal tasks that I can do for free. Obviously this company was started by lawyers since their advertisements say that they were created by lawyers but the company doesn’t do legal services. Talk about the ultimate legalese, and by the way, the ultimate load of crap.
So, of the seven companies that have taken their advertizing away from Rush Limbaugh, I have and never would shop with any of them. Now even more than before.
The thing that really irritates me about the choice of these companies to drop their advertising is that they knew who Rush Limbaugh was before any of this latest debate happened. As long was he is getting no serious flack, they were in since they were making a great deal of money advertising on his very popular radio show. Once he received some flack from a fluke, they were gone.
Good riddance to them. Given the lack of integrity of these companies, I expect they will be back soon. If not, who cares? There are many other companies with integrity that will show up.
So with this recent dust-up, Mr. Limbaugh succeeded in gaining further attention. Good for him. As usual, the elite media has misconstrued his meaning. Although it is irritating, that is typical. And several companies without any real integrity have taken their advertising money away from Mr. Limbaugh’s show. Again, this is irritating but expected .
However, my larger concern is this. Rush Limbaugh apologized to the fluke. Now THAT is disturbing.