Oh Look, it's Sandra Fluke. (Opinion Editorial/Obama Re-Election Advert. on CNN)

[Warfish]

Now she's a duly published Political Opinion Writer/Maker.

I think it's fair to call her a public figure now, right? An active Activist, Political wriiter, on TV and writing for CNN.

[QUOTE][B][U]Fluke: Why this election is so personal [/U][/B]

By Sandra Fluke, Special to CNN

[IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120613105040-sandra-fluke-portrait-left-tease.jpg[/IMG]

Editor's note: Sandra Fluke graduated cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center and has served as president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice. Watch Fluke in the 9 a.m. hour ET Thursday on CNN Newsroom, hosted by Carol Costello.

(CNN) -- The stakes are high this November, for the strength of our economy and the direction of our country. For me, like a lot of us, the stakes are also personal: The choice I make in the voting booth will significantly affect my friends, my loved ones and my generation. Like many millennials, I am concerned about the job market and costs of college. And I'm worried about access to affordable health care for all.

But I could never have predicted just how intensely personal this election would become. When I was publicly attacked for testifying before members of Congress, I became even more keenly aware that the rights that generations of women fought so hard to achieve could be rolled back easily. That began a national conversation that I believe highlighted President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney's vastly different values and visions.

Obama is committed to rebuilding our economy upon the values of fairness and opportunity and the belief that all Americans, both men and women, must have the rights they deserve. That's why I'm proud to endorse his re-election.

He's demonstrated those values since he moved into the Oval Office. The first law he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which empowers women to challenge pay discrimination in the workplace. He's now asking Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to help stop pay discrimination before it starts and close the 23% gap between women's earnings and men's earnings.

Obama also made college more affordable by doubling our investment in Pell Grant scholarships, giving students tuition tax breaks and by fighting to keep interest rates low on student loans. He's helping millions of students graduate without the weight of unbearable loans and financial insecurity.

Most importantly, Obamacare is providing vital health coverage for millions of young Americans, especially women and families. When the reforms are fully in effect, we will no longer be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition or charged more for insurance because we are women. We will finally have affordable access to preventive care, such as prenatal exams, cancer screenings and contraception. Health reform makes real the fair premise that our access to basic health care shouldn't depend on where we work, where we go to school or what gender we are.

Obama has moved our country forward by working not only to ensure Americans' prosperity, but also by guaranteeing that our rights are protected and we all have opportunities to succeed. By comparison, Romney has offered only frightening promises to send us backward.

On fair pay for women, Romney says he won't do anything to make the situation worse; this is little comfort when he then says he won't do anything to make it better. He won't tell us whether he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter law, and he failed to stand up to congressional Republicans who opposed the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Romney would cut his own taxes, but make college more expensive for young people just getting on their feet. Those aren't the values we want in a president -- and they're a stark contrast to Obama, who would raise his own taxes and keep cutting them for the middle class. Romney would allow the college tax credit expire for millions of middle-class families and embraced the congressional Republican budget that would let student loan interest rates double.

Instead of explaining how he would improve Americans' access to health care, Romney says only that he would "repeal Obamacare" and "kill it dead on its first day."

In practical terms, that means Romney would strip health care coverage from the more than 6.6 million young Americans who, thanks to Obamacare, are not being dropped from their parents' insurance coverage. He would allow insurance companies to keep charging women a billion dollars more every year than they charge men. He would eliminate mandatory preventative care coverage despite its life-saving benefits. In this, Romney has revealed an alarming lack of the vision required to lead.

Fundamentally, it's that capacity for leadership that is most important in a president, which brings me back to the national conversation fueled by the verbal assault I experienced earlier this year.

In the aftermath of those attacks, I was heartened by the many Americans of all political stripes who reached out to me and supported me. They knew that whether we agree or disagree, as Americans we defend one another's right to speak before our elected officials without enduring personal attacks.

Obama responded as so many Americans did, by condemning those attacks as antithetical to our democracy.

Romney, when pressed to address those attacks, could only say, "Those aren't the words I would have chosen." If Romney lacks the leadership to stand up to extremists in his own party, then he's not the president we need. At a time when women's rights especially are under virulent attack, we cannot elect a leader who won't or can't stand up to those extremists and protect the rights that generations of women have fought so hard to ensure.

Thankfully, we don't have to. We have a president who has consistently shown he will defend those rights while working to ensure that all women and men have all the protections and opportunities they need to pursue economic success.

But if we're going to keep Obama in the White House, we need to get involved, get out the vote and do what Romney refuses to do on everything from fair pay to women's rights: speak up. I'll never stop speaking up, and I hope you'll join me.
[/QUOTE]

It still sounds like she believes SHE has the right to advocate/speak, but also has a right to be immune from criticism for her activism/speach.

With respect Ms. Fluke, thats not how Freedom fo Speech works, and you do not posess a "right" to speak without potentially enduring retort, both civil and uncivil.

[WestCoastOffensive]

I am sure we'll get some retorts now. :D

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=WestCoastOffensive;4491478]I am sure we'll get some retorts now. :D[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't count on that. Rush won't bite again, and the other Talkers will at best only give a glancing reply to this kind of thing.

[quantum]

Editor's note: Sandra Fluke graduated [I]cum dumpsteratus[/I] from Georgetown University Law Center...


new Latin phrase :yes:

[shakin318]

CNN's ratings have been horrible recently...a few ticks above public access cable. Is this really their hail mary? Sandra "I go through thousands of dollars of contraceptives each month" Fluke? Is anyone awake there at CNN? Helllo? The whole fabricated "War on Women" angle crashed and burned hilariously months ago.

[WestCoastOffensive]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4491489]I wouldn't count on that. Rush won't bite again, and the other Talkers will at best only give a glancing reply to this kind of thing.[/QUOTE]I meant in here; but mebbe not; maybe we are all Detroit guys; picking up the wood, not listenin' to NO WIMMEN!

[QUOTE=quantum;4491491]Editor's note: Sandra Fluke graduated [I]cum dumpsteratus[/I] from Georgetown University Law Center...


new Latin phrase :yes:[/QUOTE]
:D:D:D

[quantum]

[QUOTE=WestCoastOffensive;4491503]I meant in here; but mebbe not; maybe we are all Detroit guys; picking up the wood, not listenin' to NO WIMMEN!


:D:D:D[/QUOTE]

ya gotta admit - her contraceptive budget is like FF2's donut budget: way out of control. :eek:

[MnJetFan]

She laid her way thru Law School!

[WestCoastOffensive]

[QUOTE=quantum;4491507]ya gotta admit - her contraceptive budget is like FF2's donut budget: way out of control. :eek:[/QUOTE]
:scratch: She looks for loose change under her seats as she hits the Drive-Thru Pharmacy?








:boogie2:

[chiefst2000]

Wow I didn't realize she was the President of Georgetown Students for Womens Reproductive Justice. That is a prestigious title.

Now she is advocating for another Paycheck Fairness Act. Interesting. I will explain. The Paycheck Fairness Act opens up the floodgates for Trial Lawyers to launch class action lawsuits against companies where statistics show that women appear to be making less then men. Seems like a great idea right?

On further thought lets reexamine. So the law would enable trial lawyers to come in solicit a complaint and subpoena companies pay records with the goal of launching class action lawsuits. Here is where it gets fuzzy. Many women are also mothers. These working moms often value work flexibility above all other things. In order to accommodate them many companies allow for flexible work schedules, lower hours and work from home arrangements. Sadly if Sandra and her liberal friends get their way this will have to change. Once the trial lawyers get their hands on this one companies will have to bring salaries in line. The idea of flexible work hours arrangements will have to go out the window. Accommodations for moms struggling to balance working with parenting will be eliminated.

Winners and losers?

Well certainly the Trial Lawyers that drafted the legislation will be the biggest winners in this. A small nod to their Democrat puppets and enablers that would take credit for "helping women".

Losers:

First and foremost would be women. If passed this law would force companies to treat all employees equally. Women that currently enjoy flexible working hours and accommodations would be screwed. Working moms would be faced with a choice of simply not working or working the same hours as their male counterparts that often work 50+ hours a week. The concept of being home for dinner or taking off to care for a sick child will go out the window.

Secondly the losers will be corporations. They are double losers here because many will face frivalous lawsuits from the pariah trial lawyers. They will spend hundreds of millions defending these suits or settling them. They also lose out on valuable female workers whom when faced with the decision of completely losing their work hours flexibility will choose family over job.


The entire premise of the Lilly Ledbetter and workplace fairness act is based on a flawed study that showed women making 77% of what men make for similar jobs. The flaw was that the study did not account for total hours worked. When looked at from the total work hours perspective women on average made slightly more then their male counterparts. That doesn't fit the progressive narrative so they simply don't mention it.

[DeanPatsFan]

Sandra Fluke...rhymes with F**k closed her legs, got off her back and found a job in Obungler's economy?

Good for her......

[Warfish]

Silly Chiefs.

By "Equal" what they really mean is "Superior".

What will happen in reality is women will be mandated to be paid equal or more than their equivalent male co-workers (because more is always ok in quota/affirmative action/equallity policies).

Women will still get all of the flex-time, special-needs, parents-days, kids-sick-got-to-go days, etc. that they get now, except it will be codified into Law that an employer must provide these to women. Proof of children not required. No such mandate wil be made for men/fathers.

And then everyone will be happy, right! True fairness, true equallity.

[chiefst2000]

My advice to anyone planning to bang Ms. Fluke? Don't be tempted to forego protection just because she spends $3000 per year on contraceptives. Double bag it! Remember this: SHE SPENDS $3000 a year on contraceptives!!!Thats alot of unprotected random screwing.

[chiefst2000]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4491576]Silly Chiefs.

By "Equal" what they really mean is "Superior".

What will happen in reality is women will be mandated to be paid equal or more than their equivalent male co-workers (because more is always ok in quota/affirmative action/equallity policies).

Women will still get all of the flex-time, special-needs, parents-days, kids-sick-got-to-go days, etc. that they get now, except it will be codified into Law that an employer must provide these to women. Proof of children not required. No such mandate wil be made for men/fathers.

And then everyone will be happy, right! True fairness, true equallity.[/QUOTE]

If only that were the case. Maybe companies would be forced to give men all the flex pay and work from home etc. Then everyone would win...right?

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4491586]If only that were the case. Maybe companies would be forced to give men all the flex pay and work from home etc. Then everyone would win...right?[/QUOTE]

Like the way State Family courts today give "equal" and "fair" treatment to men and women, right?

Lol, silly silly Chiefs.

[chiefst2000]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4491576]Silly Chiefs.

By "Equal" what they really mean is "Superior".

What will happen in reality is women will be mandated to be paid equal or more than their equivalent male co-workers (because more is always ok in quota/affirmative action/equallity policies).

Women will still get all of the flex-time, special-needs, parents-days, kids-sick-got-to-go days, etc. that they get now, except it will be codified into Law that an employer must provide these to women. Proof of children not required. No such mandate wil be made for men/fathers.

And then everyone will be happy, right! True fairness, true equallity.[/QUOTE]

On a serious note. At my company we have an female office manager with young children that we recently hired. During the interview process we touted our flexible schedule as a major benefit to the job. When her child has a graduation or gets sick she is able to go handle it no questions asked. It's just how we roll around here. Our employee appreciates that flexibility. She turned down offers for more money in exchange for a workplace that was closer to her home and offered flexibility. Sandra and her foolish brethren in the Democrat party would take that freedom away.

[chiefst2000]

Anyone ever notice that the folks that call themselves liberals always seem to want to take away peoples liberties and freedom?

I was just thinking about it and it seems odd. They have the workplace fairness act that is designed to take away womens freedom to choose employment that offers flexible hours and pay.

They have their forced unionization rules that take away workers rights to choose to join or not join unions. When given the freedom to choose (as evidenced in Wisconsin)most drop the unions

They have their constant attacks on gun owners attempting to take away their rights to own weapons

They have their healthcare law that takes away the freedom to choose healthcare plans tailored to the individual. Everyone is forced to buy the same super expensive plan.

The list goes on and on.

They outlaw incandesent bulbs and force everyone to buy mercury filled "energy saver" bulbs

They force Catholics institutions to pay for procedures and medications that their religion does not agree with.

This is just off the top of my head

[quantum]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4491576]Silly Chiefs.

By "Equal" what they really mean is "Superior".

What will happen in reality is women will be mandated to be paid equal or more than their equivalent male co-workers (because more is always ok in quota/affirmative action/equallity policies).

Women will still get all of the flex-time, special-needs, parents-days, kids-sick-got-to-go days, etc. that they get now, except it will be codified into Law that an employer must provide these to women. Proof of children not required. No such mandate wil be made for men/fathers.

And then everyone will be happy, right! True fairness, true equallity.[/QUOTE]

Bitter white male is ....bitter. :dunno: :D

[quantum]

[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4491601]Anyone ever notice that the folks that call themselves liberals always seem to want to take away peoples liberties and freedom?

I was just thinking about it and it seems odd. They have the workplace fairness act that is designed to take away womens freedom to choose employment that offers flexible hours and pay.

They have their forced unionization rules that take away workers rights to choose to join or not join unions. When given the freedom to choose (as evidenced in Wisconsin)most drop the unions

They have their constant attacks on gun owners attempting to take away their rights to own weapons

They have their healthcare law that takes away the freedom to choose healthcare plans tailored to the individual. Everyone is forced to buy the same super expensive plan.

The list goes on and on.

They outlaw incandesent bulbs and force everyone to buy mercury filled "energy saver" bulbs

They force Catholics institutions to pay for procedures and medications that their religion does not agree with.

This is just off the top of my head[/QUOTE]


WORST by far is the whole thought police thing. :shakehead

[intelligentjetsfan]

100% agree; she is fair game to be criticized, or praised, since she has taken the step into being a paid political contributor and offering her political opinions.

But there is no ethical excuse for personally attacking her. If you don't agree with her politics for supporting Obama then have at it! But freedom of speech does not offer the license to say [B]anything[/B] you want about anyone.

So if CNN's paid advertisement for Obama is interfering with Fox News' paid advertisements then stand up and be heard! You have every right to voice your disagreement with her politics. But please don't be a caveman and attack her on a personal level; (women only use birth control to have a lot of sex and be slutty :rolleyes:)

[IMG]http://www.topcartoonimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Captain-Caveman-and-the-Teen-Angels-Anime-Cartoon.gif[/IMG]