[speechlesstx]

Three icons of feminism have penned an op-ed saying the FCC should get rid of Limbaugh. Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem have united - like freedom-loving tolerant liberals everywhere - to silence Rush. I'm sure it escapes them that they're exercising their first amendments to deny Limbaugh his, but what else is new?

What's sadder than their ignorance of our first amendment is willful their ignorance of their own repugnant smears of women who choose to be different from them.

Steinem once said of housewives, they are "dependent creatures who are still children…parasites."

Nothing insulting or demeaning about that.

More on liberal 'choice':

Another “feminist”, Simone de Beauvoir said: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”

So instead of women choosing to stay home and raise a family they should be subjugated to whatever the feminist crowd deems a "real woman" should be. Are you following yet? No?

Well this should tell you how feminists are beclowning themselves. From Liberal Ladies Who Lunch, who plan on withholding sex:

“American men enjoy the benefits of women making their own choices about when to get pregnant. Men get the advantage of free, easy access sex with young women of child-bearing age. It wasn’t like that sixty years ago. If women can’t get reliable birth control, they will just have to keep their legs crossed to prevent pregnancy–even married women. I don’t think anyone wants that.”

So, the purpose of birth control is so men can take a free ride on some easy woman. Yeah, don't you feminists feel empowered by that? No talking, no dinner, no date, no respect, just get on board. At least they acknowledge that by keeping their legs crossed there is no need to force us to buy their contraceptives.

Sorry, conservatives respect women far too much to treat them as slaves to a bunch of men who promise them free contraceptives and abortion on demand so we can have "free, easy access sex with young women of child-bearing age".

[TUT317]

Three icons of feminism have penned an op-ed saying the FCC should get rid of Limbaugh. Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem have united - like freedom-loving tolerant liberals everywhere - to silence Rush. I'm sure it escapes them that they're exercising their first amendments to deny Limbaugh his, but what else is new?

What's sadder than their ignorance of our first amendment is willful their ignorance of their own repugnant smears of women who choose to be different from them.

Hi Steve,

Perhaps you can explain to me the point of posting this feministic nonsense. It's too easy to find written nonsense everywhere. For example, I just read and commented on the an article dealing with Australian Eugenics.

I thought this feministic nonsense topped everything so far until I had a careful read of someone's interpretation of Australian law.

It wouldn't be a journalistic problem would it?

Tut

[speechlesstx]

This is the current events board, this is a current event. The point of posting it is to demonstrate the absurdity and hypocrisy of feminists. You're free to comment or not.

[excon]

Hello Steve:

I hear the limp one lost 148 advertisers. Even the FREE one from the Heart Association has been removed. He's toast. Joe McCarthy was taken down by a simple question, "Sir, have you no decency?". I WAS only a matter of time.

In terms of ladies WANTING him to be removed from our airways, I think they were exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL rights. By the way, broadcasters DON'T have Constitutional rights to say what they wish on the public airways.. You HAVE heard of the 7 dirty words you can't say on TV. But, you CAN say those words on a soapbox in front of your local courthouse.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Ex, the only reason they want to shut Limbaugh up is they can't compete with him. He'll be just fine.

But the main issue I want to address is the last part. Why are feminists insulting other women for making a different choice, and reducing themselves to sex toys for men? Isn't that all a little bit hypocritical and counterproductive?

[excon]

Why are feminists insulting other women for making a different choice,

Hello again, Steve:

You'll have to ask them. I'd never do it.

Me? I'm a TRUE feminist.. I LOVE Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter too. I'm THRILLED that I live in a country where women can speak their mind and run for the highest office in the land.

excon

[speechlesstx]

You'll have to ask them. I'd never do it.

Me?? I'm a TRUE feminist.. I LOVE Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter too. I'm THRILLED that I live in a country where women can speak their mind and run for the highest office in the land.

I love it, too, but what about the rest of my question?

[speechlesstx]

Twas hard to decide where to post this one, but this Democrat fundraising letter I believe qualifies as feminists beclowning themselves...

BREAKING NEWS
Mitt Romney: "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."

[Name redacted] --

Republicans have a clear agenda for women: Defund Planned Parenthood, deny women access to health care and birth control, and even prohibit women the right to participate in the debate about women’s health care.

Grassroots Democrats around the country have united against the Republican War on Women to launch a Women's Health Accountability Fund. Our goal is to expose the truth about Republicans' war on women with an aggressive rapid response operation including ads, on-the-ground organizing and more.

It's important that national Republicans and their allies like Rush Limbaugh are held accountable for their vile, outrageous, and unceasing attacks on women’s health care. We are only $19,433 away from our Women’s Health Accountability fund goal before tonight’s midnight deadline.

Please chip in $3 by midnight tonight so Democrats can launch an urgent rapid response campaign against the Republican War on Women.

Republicans in Congress thought they could silence us by refusing to let Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke testify on their all-male panel on birth control coverage.

They were wrong.

There are only hours to go before Democrats launch an urgent grassroots campaign to hold Republicans accountable for their War on Women.

Can you pitch in right now?

Thanks,

Rep. Diana DeGette
Co-Chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus

P.S. While Republicans double down on their radical agenda that would restrict women’s access to reproductive health care and the right to have a seat at the table to discuss women’s health care, we are making sure American people know the truth. Will you join us?

The truth about the "Republican war on women?" Manufactured nonsense. Democrats made it up as a diversion from Obama's failures, invented the enemy and are now engaged in an imaginary war. Sounds strangely like a movie plot...

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know. When you take everything that's happened in the last few weeks, it LOOKS like the Republicans are, in fact, declaring war on women...

Do you want me to list them?? You didn't forget, did you? Well, I didn't. Let me see if I can remember... I'm sure it goes back farther than this, but the Susan G. Komen foundation DEFUNDED PP. Intervaginal PROBING of women seeking an abortion was passed in Texas, and they tried to pass it in Virginia. Of course, there's been HUNDRED of bills in state legislatures LIMITING free choice...

Yeah, I'm out of order, but it's hard to remember them in their right order...

Then you got Santorum saying that HE believes contraceptives are BAD for America. Then you got the church fiasco. Then you got the Blount Amendment...

So, when you take ALL that into consideration, and I'm sure I forgot some stuff, there's no way you couldn't conclude that Republicans have declared war on women.

excon

PS> (edited) Oh, yeah. I forgot the LIMPROD fiasco. (slaps head)

[speechlesstx]

I'm not responsible for what Komen does, no one is forcing transvaginal ultrasounds on anyone, and Obama started the war on the church with Stephanoupolus' help. Oh, and any bill restricting abortion is a pro-baby bill, not anti-woman. Many of those babies would have grown up to be women you know.

We didn't start this war, it was you anti-baby people.

[speechlesstx]

P.S. It wasn't Rush that posed for a photo groping a cardboard cutout of Hillary or trying to pour a beer down her, it was Obama's speech writer and a pal.

At the exact moment Jon Favreau is receiving high praise in pre-inaugural media puff pieces, the 27-year-old chief speechwriter for President-elect Barack Obama (not Jon Favreau, the Hollywood actor/ director) finds himself in a minor mess over a photo from a recent private party showing him groping the breast of a cardboard cutout of Hillary Rodham Clinton as an unnamed pal wearing an “Obama staff” T-shirt kisses and feeds her beer.

If you haven’t seen it, imagine the early stages of the barroom rape scene of “The Accused” with Jodie Foster. Or think prosecutor Mike Nifong’s graphic (though false) descriptions of the Duke lacrosse party. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson danced to a similar tune at the 2004 Super Bowl.

Fraternities have been closed for less.

Nothing wrong with that if you're a Democrat though, right?

[TUT317]

P.S. It wasn't Rush that posed for a photo groping a cardboard cutout of Hillary or trying to pour a beer down her, it was Obama's speech writer and a pal.





Nothing wrong with that if you're a Democrat though, right?

Hi Steve,

Looks and sounds like a manufactured war as well.

Seems like a contest to see who can come up with the best manufactured news item.

Perhaps there is an argument to make a distinction between 'current events' and 'current affairs'

Tut

[speechlesstx]

Tut, the hypocrisy of feminists ignoring the misogyny in their own camp while attacking anyone that doesn't back their agenda isn't manufactured. And at least one feminist gets it:

Did you know there is a war on women?

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.

But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batsh*t crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews
“is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.

After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the “war on women,” then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?

It’s time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.

Bravo Kirsten.

[TUT317]

Tut, the hypocrisy of feminists ignoring the misogyny in their own camp while attacking anyone that doesn't back their agenda isn't manufactured. And at least one feminist gets it:



Bravo Kirsten.

Hi Steve,

Hypocrisy and pushing a strong left- wing agenda go hand in hand. It is also the case they hypocrisy and pushing a strong right- wing agenda go hand in hand.

It is a war of sorts; a war of words. The first casualty of war is the truth.

I don't mind people having these agends but what I can't understand is why the mainstream media regards this type of stuff as bread and butter issues. The debate on Fox about fairness will end up being a waste of time. Will it not end up being an exercise in promoting someone's, 'over the top' position?

Tut

[tomder55]

I think a government deciding what is fair is over the top.

[paraclete]

I have come to the conclusion that this thread is a load of C.R.A.P.

[TUT317]

I think a government deciding what is fair is over the top.

Hi Tom,

So the answer is to do nothing? Not happy with the possibility of standards giving the public a better product to view, listen or read?

Tut

[tomder55]

I am not very much interested in censorship.I also think the public was misinformed when the so called 'main stream media' was the sole gatekeepers of 'truth' . I prefer this system better where host declare their philosphical leaning .

[TUT317]

I am not very much interested in censorship.I also think the public was misinformed when the so called 'main stream media' was the sole gatekeepers of 'truth' . I prefer this system better where host declare their philosphical leaning .

Hi Tom,

"I prefer this system better where a host declares their philosophical leanings"

I assume this is reference is to Strossel's declared Libertarian position for the debate.

I didn't jump the gun. In fact I should have known better. The Fox leopard doesn't change its spots.

This type of journalism is bad.In fact it is very bad.

Before I give my reasons I will answer you comment about censorship and standards. Standards are not censorship. It is only censorship if standards are imposed from the outside. Journalistic ethics, like most professions who adopt an ethical standard see the importance of professionall behaviour. Most professions in this country are prepared recognize standards and see the importance of their profession actually contributing to a code of conduct.

A code of conduct is worth little if there is no independent body to monitor these standards. So no, standards are not censorship.

As I said in my opinion this type of Fox promoted journalism is bad journalism. Why not have someone who is a declared Marxist on the show? What purpose can this possibly serve? Marxism is about as relevant as Libertarianism. Not at all relevant.

It would make no difference if they invited Karl Marx on the show to oppose Strossel's point of view. It still would be bad journalism.

If I wanted to view or read this type of bad journalism I would Google something along the lines of "Western Australia promoting sterilization without parental consent" or some other beat-up of an issue.

I have no problems with beat-ups. I know to where to look for them and I know what to expect. Should we expect more than just another beat-up from the main stream media?

Tut

[tomder55]

The main stream media is the dinosaur media. Good riddance. What you are saying that some government agency should be the arbiter of the truth ? I prefer this system where an expose by a Stossel or a Dan Rather gets filtered through the independent lense of people with opposing viewpoints . Counterpoints are easy to find in the competition ,and the individual is persuaded .
When Dan Rather fabricated his story about GW Bush's National Guard record it never would've been challenged in the past under the main stream media model . But now with the web ;those citizen journalists (derided as blogging in their pajamas) were the ones who did the real investigative work and exposed Rather as a fraud . Before then Rather was considered one of the trusted gate keepers . One has to wonder how many other instances of sloppy or outright fabricated journalism was passed off as truth before he was exposed. It wasn't some government censor who discovered his fraud .

For another example ,read the posting up today about NPR . NPR is a government run news and entertainment outlet . Yet they have been exposed more than once or breaching the very standards you say the government should maintain.