Posted on 03/02/2012 12:37:54 PM PST by BarnacleCenturion
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum labeled Rush Limbaugh "absurd" over disparaging remarks from the radio talk show host directed at a law student who testified before a House panel in support of access to contraceptives.
"He's being absurd, but that's you know, an entertainer can be absurd," Santorum told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Friday. "He's in a very different business than I am."
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
How absurd! He didn't go after anyone!
Obviously he doesnt care about America.. he cares about himself..
His ideas pale next to Newts Rick's.. they are infantile..
Not much difference between Santo Newt and Willard..
Demonstrating that I can be just as absurd.
He didn't turn on Rush or anyone else. Don't be so absurd!
Not reading the comment in context is absurd!
The absurdity of the Gingrich cult is the fraud.
Rush is pushing back to their use of silly props and propaganda machine. Similar to Christie pushing back to using Warren Buffet and his secretary. GOP should let them point out the absurdity.
>> Another inaccurate headline.
It is. The Left loves taking Rick out of context.
Without reading the article, I’ll bet Santorum was attempting to defend Rush by playing off the controversial remarks as some form of satire. There’s no way Rick would throw Rush under the bus.
Rick is a good man, with a big heart. Regardless of our opinion on his Presidential run, make no mistake about his allegiance to Social Conservatism and the talkers that share his views.
I prefer, however, we not be obliged to partake in this dance.
Go Newt!!!
The Gingrich cult on FR is becoming the definition of absurd. They'll take any opportunity to trash Santorum regardless how unoffensive his comment may be.
I hope Limbaugh says it again!
SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT SLUT!!
Just highlighting your absurdity.
He’s got about as much depth as a bird-bath.
The lie is the headline of this article. He never said Rush's comment was absurd. He said Rush was being absurd - which he was. That's what Rush does; he demonstrates absurdity by being absurd.
HOLY CRAP! Are FReepers that stupid???
Lots of people here are Jaywalking and thinking that Santorum was insulting Limbaugh!! Rush chooses to “be absurd” and use humor to ILLUSTRATE ABSURDITY.
Rick is smart and understands that. Rush isn’t a politician so he can afford to be funny.
This is the rest of what Santorum said. Can you tell me the part where he tells Rush to apologize?
The former Pennsylvania senator said he is instead concerned about the government's involvement in people's personal lives."I'm concerned about the public policy of this president imposing his values on people, people of faith who morally object to the government telling them they have to do something, which they believe is a grave moral wrong," Santorum, a Catholic, said in an interview on CNN's "The Situation Room."
If this is the case, it's a losing strategy.
I think you need to watch the video and read the rest of the article, because he's not "over-correcting" on anything. This is what he said after pointing out that Rush was being absurd:
The former Pennsylvania senator said he is instead concerned about the government's involvement in people's personal lives."I'm concerned about the public policy of this president imposing his values on people, people of faith who morally object to the government telling them they have to do something, which they believe is a grave moral wrong," Santorum, a Catholic, said in an interview on CNN's "The Situation Room."
"Oh no, the super-duper scary liberals have framed the debate, quick, suck up to their group think then chastise the ones who dare to fight for truth."
Here's a thought how about you read what was actually said before commenting?
The former Pennsylvania senator said he is instead concerned about the government's involvement in people's personal lives."I'm concerned about the public policy of this president imposing his values on people, people of faith who morally object to the government telling them they have to do something, which they believe is a grave moral wrong," Santorum, a Catholic, said in an interview on CNN's "The Situation Room."
Please do not tell me what to think or how to interpret a man’s actions and I’ll be kind enough to do the same for you.
LLS
LLS
You think Santorum made a wise move here?
Thats absurd!
Back when he was defending Bill Maher over the “brave terrorist” remarks that got Maher fired, Rush said the comments were over the line but explained that controversial comments are what pays the bills for all of them.”
The problem is the comment wasn't absurd, but maybe Rush should have stuck with the more refined “prostitute” word, since she wants us to pay for her birth control. Why can't she ask the guys to pay? Why is the Catholic Church supposed to pay for this girl's sexual activity.
I agree with those who said, Rick should have used this as a teaching moment. The comment wasn't absurd since the women volunteered the information about herself. Rick could have easily turned the issue around and said he would not call her that name, but he couldn't understand why she expected the Catholic Church to pick up her tab for something they do not believe in. Rick could have talked about personal responsibility, but instead he called the comment absurd.
As far as Bill Maher’s words, the word he used is less acceptable than slut and the media did not care that he used the word to describe Sarah Palin who did not in any way deserve the derogatory comment.
bttt
You wrote: “Lots of people here are Jaywalking and thinking that Santorum was insulting Limbaugh!! Rush chooses to “be absurd” and use humor to ILLUSTRATE ABSURDITY.”
When you see the timeline shown below, you will find that Rush was merely ECHOING the 2-day old comments of others and adding his hilarious “illustrating the absurd by being absurd” commentary to the mix.
Here we go (Readers: spread it far and wide):
TIMELINE:
February 27, 2012
Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate
http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/sex-crazed-co-eds-going-broke-buying-birth-control-student-tells-pelosi-hearing
By Craig Bannister
A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control.
Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama’s mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage.
Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it’s hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke’s research shows.
“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported.
It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.
$3,000 for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex – and, she wants us to pay for it.
Yes, us. Where do you think the insurance companies forced to cover this cost get the money to pay for these co-eds to have sex? It comes from the health care insurance premiums you and I pay.
But, back to this woman’s complaint that women are spending $3,000 for birth control during her time in college.
“For a lot of students, like me, who are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary,” she complains.
So, they can earn enough money in just one summer to pay for three full years of sex. And, yes, they are full years – since that could translate into having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.
At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does CVS.com list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?)
Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn’t cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).
And, that’s not even considering that there are Planned Parenthood clinics in her neighborhood that give condoms away and sell them at a discount, which could help make her sexual zeal more economical.
Besides, maybe, these female law students could cut back on some other expenses to make room for more birth control in their budgets, instead of making us pick up the tab. With classes and studying and all that sex, who’s got time for cable?
And, let’s not forget about these deadbeat boyfriends (or random hook-ups?) who are having sex 2.74 times a day. If Fluke’s going to ask the government to force anyone to foot the bill for her friends’ birth control, shouldn’t it be these guys?
All of this seems to suggest at least two important conclusions:
If these women want to have sex, we shouldn’t be forced to pay for it, and
If these co-eds really are this guy crazy, I should’ve gone to law school
<>
Feb 29th 2012 at 10:59 am
Hypocrisy on Capitol Hill: Deconstructing a Dishonest Speech About Birth Control
http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/02/29/hypocrisy-on-capitol-hill-deconstructing-a-dishonest-speech-about-birth-control/
by Charles C. Johnson
As a student at Cornell and treasurer of a a pro-choice organization at the school, Sandra Fluke, helped shut down a pro-life speech on Cornell’s campus by counter protesting. She argued that a pro-life organization at Cornell was about “manipulating [students’] emotions” with misleading statistics about abortion. But when it is her turn to speak on Capitol Hill, the third-year Georgetown Law Student demands she gets her say in a hearing that has nothing to do with birth control.
Fluke, who was awarded a B.S. in Policy Analysis & Management, and a Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies degree from Cornell in 2003, has since become a cause celebre among the political left-wing because she wasn’t allowed to testify in a congressional hearing. The Washington Post has even called her an “expert witness.”
But what is she an expert in? ”I’m an American woman who uses contraceptives,” Fluke said, when asked Thursday by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., about her qualifications to speak at the hearing. Well, there you have it. We are told by congressmen that she speaks for “millions” of women, so let’s have a listen to her testimony before the Democrats on Capitol Hill:
Though Fluke wouldn’t have you know it, most women don’t need birth control. Indeed, if the cost of keeping her ovary was a mere $3,000 a year, why couldn’t her gay friend–assuming she actually exists–take time off of law school to save up for her birth control? Why couldn’t we mandate coverage for women who have the disorder of polycystic ovary syndrome? And if her insurance won’t cover it, why can’t she go and pick up a pack of $9 a month pills from Target? What’s more who said she had to go law school at Georgetown, a Jesuit law school? If birth control were such a serious criteria in one’s life, wouldn’t you choose your law school accordingly? Fluke says that women should refuse to choose between their health and a quality education, but adult life is about making just such choices.
And if this problem is such a real one why don’t we hear from the women themselves, rather than Fluke, about their medical problems? Maybe if Planned Parenthood and other organizations ostensibly dedicated to women’s health weren’t so busy profiting from abortions, they could take some of their nonprofit largesse and give it to women in need.
Ah, but you see, college and law school, like birth control, is a right that comes, if not from our Creator, than from Obama, the creator of our laws.
<>
02/29/2012 after twelve noon:
Butt Sisters are Safe from Newt and Rick
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/29/butt_sisters_are_safe_from_newt_and_rick
Rush “... then there is this story from the Cybercast News Service. Here’s it is. February 29th, Leap Day:
“A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control. Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama’s mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage. Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it’s hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke’s research shows.”
<>
Left Freaks Out Over My Fluke Remarks
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks
March 01, 2012
<>
The Democrats are Desperate: Obama Calls Sandra Fluke, the 30-Year-Old Victim
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/02/the_democrats_are_desperate_obama_calls_sandra_fluke_the_30_year_old_victim
March 02, 2012
<>
Please visit the Rush links above and obtain his actual words, rather than believing what others say he said. bttt
28 posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 11:59:30 AM by Matchett-PI (”Andrew loved the battle and he knew the stakes.” ~ Mark Levin 3/2/12)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2853922/posts?page=28#28
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.