No Apologies: Conservatives Need To Stop Saying “Sorry” And Move In For The Kill

Rush Limbaugh has apologized for his remarks he made about Sandra Fluke.  In doing so, however, it ought not end this debate, or any debate with regards to how the American Left is destroying this country with their “progressive” ideology.  What is “progressive” about supporting a woman, like Sandra Fluke, who not only wants to engage in all the sex she wants, presumably with as many different men (women?) as she wants, but also feels she has a right to demand we the tax payers pay for her promiscuity?

If calling Sandra a “slut” is anything, it is a distraction which only fuels the Left’s already bloated anger at conservatives, and provides liberals with ammunition, and, by their reckoning, the justification, to go after us that much more harder, slam us that much more viciously, pound us that much more relentlessly and assault and attack our ideas, our morals and ethics, that much more seriously.  When we, conservatives, use a name, however vile it may be, to describe someone or someone’s actions, we, conservatives, need to do what the Left, what liberals, never do – back it up.  In other words, be able to explain the purpose of the “name-calling” so that it is not just “name-calling” for the sake of “name-calling”.  That is was liberals engage in, and resort to doing, everyday on their radio, television, newspaper and internet outlets.  The left “name-calls” without mercy, without regret, without remorse, without stop, relentlessly 24/7.  But they never back it up, and virtually never are compelled to retract themselves.  Ed Shultz became an exception to that when he called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut“.

There was no rhyme or reason for why Shultz called Ingraham a slut, other than the fact he was frustrated and defeated in his own logic (lack thereof) and arguments and resorted to doing what liberals always do when they are put in a corner by intellectual conservative superiority – they resort to infantile ad hominem attacks on us.  Why do you think Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin a c**t?  Sarah Palin is intellectually superior to Bill Maher.  So too is Laura Ingraham intellectually superior to Ed Shultz.  Two women, and two examples, of women outsmarting, outwitting, out debating men.  Two very conservative women vs. two very liberal men – and the women are superior in both instances.

Liberals are easy to out debate because they always, and virtually only, use emotions to plead their case.  Sandra Fluke used emotion in her testimony before congress to express her concern over Obama’s contraception mandate being overturned.  If/when it is overturned, Sandra fears, she will not be able to engage in as much sex as she wants, if any at all, because she cannot afford the cost of the contraception.  In Obama’s mandate, that contraception would be provided to her, and everyone else, for free, thus allowing her, and everyone else who wants it, to engage in as much sex as they want on the taxpayers dime, without the consequences and without the worry of being financially drained.

Conservatives have consistently, and continuously, pointed out what, in fact, Sandra Fluke, in exposing her sexual habits before congress, and in expressing her unashamed, unabashed desire for unbridled sex, paid for by the taxpayers, is tantamount to being.  For that, liberals, because they only deal in emotions, jumped all over conservatives with their own name-calling – sexist, misogynist, anti-woman, anti-women’s health, etc.

Conservatives are not anti-women because we take Sandra to task, often brutally, in our judgment of her silly antics.  Nor are conservatives anti-woman because we don’t feel we ought to be obligated to pay Sandra for, what is in essence, her to have sex.  In other words, if Sandra cannot, or will not have sex, without first having contraception at her disposal, and if taxpayers are the ones paying for her contraception so she can have sex – then to a degree, and from a point of view, we are paying for Sandra to have sex, who otherwise, as she has stated in her testimony, would not be engaging in sex because she cannot afford the cost of the contraception herself.  Our beef with Sandra, with all liberals, is their insistence that we must pay for their behavior, and for a behavior we find to be repugnant, immoral and even anti-woman in of itself because women who throw themselves, and their bodies around, sexually, cheapen themselves – not empower themselves.

It is liberals who cheapen women and womanhood by supporting lifestyle choices which encourages women (and even men) to engage in activities that are conducive with moral decay and societal degeneration.  Men do not respect women who flaunt their bodies at them, nor do they respect a woman’s body when she does.  Men are merely, briefly, allured to them.  That attraction, as many women know, and have found out, wears off in a very short amount of time.  What often result afterwards, and often after the man has left and cannot be found, is pregnancy.  So the woman is left with the option of keeping the child, or killing it.

This is where liberal feminists and liberals themselves, fall into emotional hysterics.  Liberals want the freedom to engage in sex, without, or regardless of, consequences, but should those consequences nonetheless arise, they want the assurance, the guarantee that they can eliminate those consequences and get back to their lives, and their sexual livelihoods without any undue interruption. And if they cannot afford the price of eliminating those consequences, they arrogantly demand taxpayers subsidize the cost for them.  What values does that teach?

Sandra Fluke, as do most liberals feminists, insist and argue that by having the taxpayer subsidize their irresponsible behavior – which they do of their own free will – they are actually saving us, the taxpayer, money in the long run, because, they insist and argue, providing women with free birth control and contraception – at taxpayers expense – inhibits or helps prevent and offset some of the “nasty” consequences and health risks associated with sex and having sex with multiple partners.  Of course abstaining altogether from sex, except with one’s spouse, is in fact the safest and surest way to prevent most of these “nasty” consequences in the first place and in long run.  But liberals never use that angle.

Conservatives need to stop apologizing and stop saying we’re sorry for condemning women (and men) who lead, who want to lead, immoral lifestyles by engaging in activities that cheapen both men and women.  This is 2012, and we are not going to go back to a time where there were laws on the books to punish certain sexual behavior.  Nor ought we.  Conservatives don’t want to take any woman’s “right” to have sex, and as much sex as she wants, away from her.  Nor do we want to take away her birth control – that birth control she takes once a day to prevent a pregnancy from occurring. That is a liberal canard and prevarication.

But when we see behavior that we find morally reprehensible, and for which we know causes damage to the lives of the people engaged in those activities, the lives of many human beings created as a result of the activities, and to society itself, we will not mince words, we will not hold our tongues, we will not bite our lips, we will not remain silent.  We will be aggressive in our condemnation, but we will also be rational, rather than emotional.  And if we happen to use a name that is supposedly offensive to someone in our argument against them and the action they have committed, because we, conservatives, are intellectually superior to liberals, we can back up our statement and move in for the kill.  And by “move in for the kill”, that is to say we can crush their, the liberals, “progressive” ideology to a pulp.

But if we must always be apologizing for our remarks, all that does it provide liberals with more excuses, more cause, more reason, more justification – more freedom – for, and to continue with, their irresponsible behavior.  And the more we backtrack the more we show weakness in our resolve and in our affirmation to whatever cause we are fighting for.  That is what the Left wants.

When apologizing for something we have said, which truly is offensive and without merit is necessary, that is one thing.  But what happens to us, to our cause, when we apologize in ways that aids and abets the Left, and makes us look like the aggressors, and makes us look foolish, weak and anti-woman, when we are not?  The Left virtually never apologizes for its actions and its behavior.  Why the hell do we so readily apologize for ours?  And before we do apologize for anything, isn’t it appropriate to demand from the Left a legitimate reason for the apology?  Isn’t it to our advantage to force liberals to come up with an intellectually valid and sound reason for why we ought to apologize for something?  Don’t we have enough courage on our side to stare down liberals who insist upon an apology based on their emotional hysteria rather than anything remotely regarding intellectuality and reason?

Before we apologize for anything we say, that liberals will always take great offense with, isn’t it prudent we first make damn sure the “offense” is worth apologizing for before we hand liberals another unwarranted, unnecessary victory by demanding liberals base their claim for an apology on rationality rather than hysterical emotions?  By doing this, we will make liberals think!

Doesn’t thinking naturally hurt a liberal’s head, which is why they are so prone to act instead of thinking – which, consequently, gets liberals into all the many jams they, like Sandra Fluke, want taxpayers to bail them out of?

Related articles

• Women Do Use Birth Control And Contraception To Be Irresponsible Also (neosecularist.com)
• To The Foolish Women Who See No Difference Between Viagra And Birth Control (neosecularist.com)
• Liberal Feminists Complaining About The “War On Women” Ought To Keep Their Mouths Shut (neosecularist.com)