Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hypocritical Criticism Of Rush Limbaugh Is No Fluke
Investor's Business Daily ^ | March 5, 2012 | Daniel John Sobieski

Posted on 03/05/2012 5:53:53 PM PST by raptor22

When the left savages the right, it's OK. When America's top conservative questions why taxpayers must subsidize the sex life of a coed, the sky falls in. Bill Maher, call your office.

When the late, great Andrew Breitbart was asked in a Twitter conversation whether he'd apologize for his website's posting of a video of a speech by Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod that led to her forced resignation, Breitbart replied, "Apologize for what?"

Breitbart knew the sensitivities and the hypocrisy of the left when their sacred cows and double standards were under attack.

Hell hath no fury, he knew, like a liberal whose dogma stands exposed. He wondered why those on the right always had to apologize for saying liberal emperors had no clothes, when the left never had to apologize for anything no matter how outrageous or offensive.

Rush Limbaugh, the usually unapologetic conservative pundit, has apologized for using language to describe Sandra Fluke, a 23-year-old Georgetown University law student whose resume reads more like that of a political activist than a victimized student. He labeled his description "insulting."

On the other hand, one wonders what words would apply to a law student in need of $3,000 worth of taxpayer-paid contraceptives as she learns how to handle briefs, no pun intended.

Limbaugh's apology came after advertisers began withdrawing their sponsorship. It is their right to do so, and one appreciates that conservatives have often organized boycotts of sponsors of programs whose content they find questionable.

Classier Than The Critics

Even Rush felt it was the right thing to do, showing more class than the critics of him or other conservative leaders. Yet criticizing the mindset that says it's perfectly normal and acceptable for a coed to demand $3,000 of taxpayer-paid contraceptives at the same time the government...

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: abortion; conscience; contraception; firstamendment; hhsmandate; ibd; limbaugh; moralabsolutes; prolife; rushlimbaugh; sandrafluke; sandytheslut; waronreligion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last
To: HiTech RedNeck
At the same time you have to look at the ten second passage of Rush commentary that aroused all the furor.

I'd have to disagree with you on this. Rush called her a slut many times, if you're worried about "slut." And he called her a prostitute.

But Rush talked about her for a significant part of his program for four days. During those four days, he attributed to her specific comments about her sex life that she didn't make (and that people on this forum believe), such as whether she was having sex with three guys in a day. If you say she's "immoral, baseless," based on the amount of sex she's having, and she never mentioned having sex, then that sounds like something out of a liberal playbook. He said she was buying condoms (and I suppose, having sex) in the sixth grade. Imagine four days of complete Rush Limbaugh transcripts, and all of them made-up things she was supposed to have said about her sex life. And Limbaugh fed on himself and just got more outrageous. None of it was true. It was as if Limbaugh started to believe himself, and certainly - read posts on FR - people who listened believed him.

21 posted on 03/05/2012 7:33:57 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

How can they not afford a $9 pack of pills, but can afford to go to school at Georgetown? Fluke is full of it! They could get the pills for free at the County Health Dept. if they are considered impoverished.


22 posted on 03/05/2012 7:39:03 PM PST by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Fred Hayek
It’s time we go Alinsky on them.

Exactly. And in this case it means holding them to their own standards on women, not degrading them. I think this is a no-brainer, and a golden opportunity given our popular culture.

23 posted on 03/05/2012 7:39:43 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Special Ed Schultz=hate
Keith Olbermann=hate
Bill Maher=hate
NBC=hate


24 posted on 03/05/2012 7:41:46 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Fluke came close to this if not technically proven to fit the role of sl-t. She advocated for things on behalf of others if not herself that were quite scandalous. She is without doubt a political whore. True, nobody has documented Fluke’s own literal love life. However, surely somewhere the admonition of the bible that one can participate in a sin by affirming it must have a place? That Fluke is at least a vicarious sl-t?


25 posted on 03/05/2012 7:43:25 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster; HiTech RedNeck

If he had talked about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s - which he won’t or allowed - press conference last Thursday, he would have been met with the same critisism


26 posted on 03/05/2012 7:43:35 PM PST by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster; HiTech RedNeck

If he had talked about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s - which he won’t or allowed - press conference last Thursday, he would have been met with the same critisism!!!


27 posted on 03/05/2012 7:44:49 PM PST by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Rush was illustrating the absurdity of her claim birth control pills cost $3000 by being absurd himself. He apologized for taking it too far.


28 posted on 03/05/2012 7:49:36 PM PST by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl
Rush was illustrating the absurdity of her claim birth control pills cost $3000 by being absurd himself.

She never said birth control pills cost $3,000 a year, though, did she? Rush may be the one who said $3,000 a year. The activist Fluke said that a woman could spent over $3,000 on contraceptives during law school if the contraceptives were prescription and they weren't covered by health insurance. Law school is three years. That means Fluke said a woman could spend over $1,000 a year. And that's true, particularly in the cases Fluke talked about - which sounded like a specific contraceptive prescribed for a woman who had a specific medical problem.

29 posted on 03/05/2012 7:59:17 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: raptor22; skeeter

Another shoe may be dropping...several sources reporting that she’s (surprise! not) a lesbian. Here’s a couple. The truth, like her age being 30/31 rather than 23, will come out soon; too many people attempting to vet her.


http://www.investorvillage.com/groups.asp?mb=16589&mn=13090&pt=msg&mid=11519729

Sandra Fluke(or is it Fluck) Is Not A Slut She Is A Lesbian In No Need Of Contraceptive Devices
OK her lesbian lover had a cyst that needed a birth control pill according to Congressional testimony demanded by Nancy Pelosi (a waste of taxpayer money). A thirty year old admitted activist who majored in “Feminist, Gender, And Sexuality Studies” at Cornell then spent the next five years in NYC on Federal Gov grant money promoting legal suits brought by the LGBT community. She is not a slut but she is a dyke with a special affinity for Rachael Maddow. There are now e-mails coming in from Georgetown Law female students revealing that they have been intimate with her...


http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance

Gulc grad
Collapse
I went to gu law. Sandra is a lesbian.

I burst out laughing when I saw her appearance....

......thought since when is Sandra having to use contraceptives with her girlfriend....??

sex change thing is interesting as maybe Sandra has been feeling like a man all along

Like Reply



30 posted on 03/05/2012 8:03:23 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (If any of their "Alternatives" actually works, the Greenies will proceed to kill it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Don’t you understand this is a continued attack on the 1st amendment? This is a pick-up of the attack on Religious FReedom. Get Real


31 posted on 03/05/2012 8:05:56 PM PST by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

From “The Other McCain”:

“Rather belatedly, we are becoming aware that this supposedly typical Georgetown coed is not very typical at all:

[B]irth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if “gender reassignment” surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.
The title of the article . . . is “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons” and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review.

Remember, as Byron York previously reported, Fluke was rejected as a last-minute substitute witness at a Feb. 16 committee hearing because staffers for Chairman Issa were unable to discover Fluke’s claim to expertise relevant to the subject of the hearing. This law school journal article is the sort of thing that might have been discovered about Fluke’s background, had the Democrats who put Fluke forward as a witness done so with the usual 72-hour advance notice. Here’s one brief quote from the article:

Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.

Now, imagine Fluke trying to defend this language about “heterosexist” policies in a public hearing, with Republican members of the committee questioning her about whether religious institutions (or private businesses, or taxpayers) should also be required to foot the bill for “gender reassignment.”

Congratulations, America: You’ve been scammed!”


32 posted on 03/05/2012 8:21:10 PM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Hayek

>>>The conservatives need to stop playing nice. We’ve been playing by Roberts Rules of Order, and the Lefties shout us down with rant chants. It’s time we go Alinsky on them. Play gotcha. Take their flubs and shove it back in their faces. Mock them and humilate them, and if they get violent, beat the crap out of them (we already have some judges ruling that assaults by Lefties as being “political free speech”). We are in a war with them, and since they are expecting one sided “rules of engagement” (only for the conservatives, not for the Left), the goal must be crushing the Left.

Potestas Democratorum delenda est!<<<

Absolutely correct. It’s either that or the eventual establishment of the Committee for Public Safety.


33 posted on 03/05/2012 9:58:54 PM PST by redpoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

From FOX News: The rush to censor Limbaugh

So why are the Left and the media still pushing and publicizing a campaign for advertisers to dump the Limbaugh show and end his career?

Because it has little to do with his words. This is all about disingenuous politics. Liberals want this government-mandate controversy to be not about religious liberty, which is devastating, but about contraceptives, which works in their favor.

That is intellectually dishonest.

They want to position conservatives as “anti-women.” That’s as ugly as it is untrue.

Everyone remembers Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a “slut” on his radio show.

Fellow talk show host Mike Malloy hoped Sarah Palin “drives herself into madness” and insisted Michele Bachmann is an “evil bitch from Hell” who would have gladly supervised the Holocaust.

Montel Williams rooted on Air America for Bachmann to slit her own wrist or throat.

Randi Rhodes insisted that teenage boys weren’t safe from Palin’s advances if they stayed over at her house. There’s no news coverage or “war on women” narrative when the mud-covered women are conservatives.

Maybe these hosts aren’t prominent enough?

Then consider the case study of Bill Maher, who’s welcomed all over TV news shows.

A year ago on his HBO show, he called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat.”

He followed up days later in a Dallas stand-up routine by calling Palin the C-word.

Last July on HBO, he said Palin was “a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos.”

Last September on his show, Maher said Palin would have sex with Rick Perry if he was black.

Days after he called Palin the T-word, he appeared with then-CNN host Eliot Spitzer, where Spitzer concluded, “Your show is brilliant. I love watching it.”

On Sunday, Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz huffed on “Meet the Press” that "I don't know any woman in America that thinks that being called a slut is funny." But two months ago, she accepted an invitation to sit on the set with the man who called Palin a “c---.”

A couple of years ago, “comedian” Louis CK “joked” on the Opie and Anthony radio show about Palin coming to the Republican convention “holding a baby that just came out of her f-ing, disgusting [C-word], her f-ing retard-making [C-word]. I hate her more than anybody,” he said.

On Twitter, this “comedian” attacked Palin in 2011 as a “f—ing jackoff [C-word]-face jazzy wondergirl” who “has a family of Chinese poor people living in her [C-word] hole.”

Guess which event this same fellow is headlining in June? -- The Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner.

WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?!?!?


34 posted on 03/06/2012 1:55:16 AM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: raptor22; Secret Agent Man
On the other hand, one wonders what words would apply to a law student in need of $3,000 worth of taxpayer-paid contraceptives as she learns how to handle briefs, no pun intended.

LOL ping

35 posted on 03/06/2012 2:30:12 AM PST by GOPJ (Democrat-media Complex¬óburied stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nhwingut

Do you have a link to any early stories that listed her as a 23 y.o.? I can’t find any now.


36 posted on 03/06/2012 3:14:07 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl
How can they not afford a $9 pack of pills, but can afford to go to school at Georgetown?

You and I both know they could afford a $9 pack of pills. Fluke told the stories of six women. Some of those stories made no sense in light of pills that cost $9 or $15/month. Woman #2 was a married female student who allegedly told Fluke that she had to stop using contraception because "she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore."

Woman #1 was a woman who felt embarrassed and powerless when she 'learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription.

But one women allegedly had a polycystic ovarian syndrome, and her birth control prescription was 'technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy', but the *gay* friend was denied coverage because the insurance company decided that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. I don't know whether a brand-specific birth control pill - i.e., not a $9/month pill - would be required.

And the woman Fluke claimed said doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance won't cover birth control pills for endometriosis - same thing. Don't know that it would be addressed by generic birth control pills.

So your point is well-taken as to some of the examples Fluke raised.

But did you notice that none of those examples had anything to do with Fluke having sex or needing contraception? And that's what Rush Limbaugh kept saying Fluke 'testified" to.

37 posted on 03/06/2012 4:21:17 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

“the activist Fluke said that a woman could spent over $3,000”

BC pills are available at Target for $4-$9 a month. Condoms are $.20 each at Amazon.com. Her comments on the affordability of birth control are totally disingenuous. If her lesbian friend was prescribed a medication that her insurance company denied coverage on, then that is a different story. I am all for making insurance companies pay legitimate claims for medical, auto, homeowners, or whatever. Instead of tackling that problem, she wants to use it as an excuse to ram birth control down Catholics throats.

We need the montage of leftists commenting on Sarah Palin, her daughter, her son, and all the others who have been brutalized. If we let them beat up Limbaugh without calling them on their gleeful savagery, the we deserve what we get.


38 posted on 03/06/2012 4:23:45 AM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?!?!?

In a perfect world, there would be outrage. We've seen, or I hope we've seen, that conservatives try to hold themselves to higher moral standards.

Liberals kill fetuses; conservatives don't. Liberal politicians who get involved in sexual scandals are consistently re-elected by liberal voters; conservative politicians who get involved in sexual scandals are consistently voted out of office by conservative voters.

Conservatives are supposed to consider right and wrong to be concrete concepts. Liberals consider 'right' and 'wrong' to be tiresome labels - they are concerned with expediency and achieving goals.

Does it surprise you that the left would be hypocritical? It doesn't surprise me?

Does it bother you that the right would be hypocritical? ("Hey! Maher should lose his job for calling Palin a bad word once! But hey! Don't you say anything critical about Limbaugh calling Fluke a bad word many times! Two wrongs make a right! We don't want the standard applied to 'our' guy and we're not willing to do so.)

39 posted on 03/06/2012 4:31:03 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
Don’t you understand this is a continued attack on the 1st amendment?

It's a massive attack on the 1st Amendment. We had the moral high ground on that issue. Why didn't Rush argue that for four days?

Instead, he made up things about Fluke's personal sex life for four days and took the spotlight away from the 1st Amendment - and he had the Bully Pulpit. Now we may never be able to reclaim the moral high ground, because when this issue is raised all anyone will remember is Fluke, Rush calling her a slut and making up things about her sex life, and Rush apologizing.

And Rush created a new liberal heroine on this issue. We'll see Sandra Fluke everywhere, on countless topics, now.

40 posted on 03/06/2012 4:36:05 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson