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

Skip to comments.

A Statement from Rush (Rush offers apology to Slut!)
Rushlimbaugh.com ^ | Mar 3, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 03/03/2012 2:15:11 PM PST by TSgt

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alinsky; apology; birthcontrol; commentary; condoms; dsj; election2012; fluke; freecondoms; lesbian; lesbianagenda; limbaugh; nonapology; rush; sandrafluke; sandytheslut; slut
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700701-743 next last
To: The Cajun
Rush should have untied the other half of his brain before he made this decision.

Your choice of words set off a little warning bell in my mind.

Maybe Rush was persuaded by his little head? (That is, does Mrs. Limbaugh have any strong feelings on this issue?)

I'd love to see Sarah Palin tweet about and eviscerate this...obvious Dem plant.

As Palin, on every aspect of this subject, holds not four aces, but fifty-two of them.

Cheers!

651 posted on 03/03/2012 9:08:30 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun
Rush should have untied the other half of his brain before he made this decision.

Your choice of words set off a little warning bell in my mind.

Maybe Rush was persuaded by his little head? (That is, does Mrs. Limbaugh have any strong feelings on this issue?)

I'd love to see Sarah Palin tweet about and eviscerate this...obvious Dem plant.

As Palin, on every aspect of this subject, holds not four aces, but fifty-two of them.

Cheers!

652 posted on 03/03/2012 9:08:42 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: rainee

I personally wouldn’t enjoy that much confrontation, but if she deserves it so be it. Make sure she knows the truth....


653 posted on 03/03/2012 9:10:15 PM PST by jeffersonwasright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
The *real* question, btw, is :

Why isn't her *boyfriend* paying for the contraceptive?

He's the one c**ing inside her, not me.

Oh, she's sleeping around? #OccupySandra

Cheers!


654 posted on 03/03/2012 9:10:42 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3
RE: “somebody* got to him with an *offer* that he couldnt refuse...bomb threats, breibart ...

Since you love the diabolical CT stuff, pictures of him and an under-aged girl during his South America vacation trip alone together doing.... would be appropriate for the sort of blackmail you are indicating.

655 posted on 03/03/2012 9:15:26 PM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: rainee
Onoz. Now you have gone and done it. Batteries, + a little extra... You are singlehandedly redefining a very Venusian concept. Arriba, abajo, acerca, adentro! (up, down, nearly, inside!). Aly-oop.
656 posted on 03/03/2012 9:17:51 PM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; rockrr; PalmettoMason; DoughtyOne; stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3; Impy
I remember Rush in 1993 and this is not him.

Limbaugh went beyond merely using the S-word. He said that she should sell sex tapes to pay for birth control.

I think that he was trying to be funny, not being literal, and I don't want to pay for birth control. But aren't we hypocrites if we defend Limbaugh on this issue and attack such "comedians" as Letterman ("slutty flight attendant look") and Maher for making similar preposterous remarks about Palin?

And how about the Playboy article about "hate rape" of conservative women in 2009?

Although all of them have rights under the 1st Amendment, I think Limbaugh handed Obama a gift. And I have a 1st Amendment right to say it wasn't funny, and it supports the false notion that conservatives are vindictive yahoos.

657 posted on 03/03/2012 9:26:03 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Rush's business is political commentating. He does it in an entertaining way. It's the left that minimizes Rush's political commentary by calling him an “entertainer”. Now you do it. “

If you did your own research instead of counting on what Rush tells you you would know that Dems do not call Rush an entertainer, They call him the leader of the Republican party.

You're wrong. I've seen the left call Rush an "entertainer" on more than a few occasions. Numerous other Freepers recall it too.

I have done it for a while now

I stand corrected. I should have said:

Rush's business is political commentating. He does it in an entertaining way. It's the left that minimizes Rush's political commentary by calling him an “entertainer”. You've been doing it for a while too.

Now why don't you go back to the ' bubble' and listen to Rush's past skits lecturing on how to NEVER give in to pressure from the left, just like he just did now.

I haven't defended Rush on his apology. Nothing that I posted would even indicate that. That makes your comment stupid.

658 posted on 03/03/2012 9:30:38 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: riri

I have no use for light banter, insider jokes interspersed with discussion of politics as though it’s a horse race.


659 posted on 03/03/2012 9:42:50 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: TSgt
No apology to the Republicans and conservatives he's caused problems for by taking the bait?
660 posted on 03/03/2012 9:45:21 PM PST by newzjunkey (Santorum: 18-point loss, voted for Sotomayor, proposed $550M on top of $900M Amtrak budget...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

Rush took the Dem’s bait and paid for it.

It was open line Friday. He should have let the listeners talk about Sheriff Joe and possible WH involvement in Breitbart death.


661 posted on 03/03/2012 9:47:12 PM PST by circumbendibus (Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. Quo Warranto in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
RE :"You're wrong. I've seen the left call Rush an "entertainer" on more than a few occasions. Numerous other Freepers recall it too."

If they were claiming he was just an entertainer then they would have NO basis for demanding that Republican congressional leaders repudiate him. They could only do this by claiming her is a leader which is what they been doing for 2+ years.

Break out of the Rush bubble. He caved just like he lectures others to never do.

662 posted on 03/03/2012 9:52:02 PM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; rockrr; PalmettoMason; DoughtyOne; stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3; Impy; ...
RE :”Limbaugh went beyond merely using the S-word. He said that she should sell sex tapes to pay for birth control.
I think that he was trying to be funny, not being literal, and I don't want to pay for birth control. But aren't we hypocrites if we defend Limbaugh on this issue and attack such “comedians” as Letterman (”slutty flight attendant look”) and Maher for making similar preposterous remarks about Palin?

I was one of the few that never got upset for those ‘attacks’ on Palin because I believe it is the price one accepts to pay for being a confrontation public figure. As you noticed it brought much hand wringing here. Well guess what? I thought Rush's comments were funny. Not great taste but entertaining. If I was asked to defend Rush I would reply that he is an entertainer.

Now the reaction to such ‘attacks’ is part of the political game of war. Obviously Dems were much more effective with this with Sandra Fluke than any relating to Palin, getting Rush on the networks. I just don't understand why it matters.

No, the problem Rush has is he endlessly harped on all the personal ‘attacks’ on Palin and many times claimed they were proof she was a ‘threat’ as a potential Republican candidate. Well does this mean Rush thinks that Sandra Fluke is a serious threat? No, once again Rush trapped himself.

663 posted on 03/03/2012 9:54:36 PM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
I'd love to see Sarah Palin tweet about and eviscerate this...obvious Dem plant.

This was a gift to really go to war with for the good of the country and take down the congressional Rats, Obama, liberal academia and MSM another peg or two the way they were pushing it, Rush ran away.

Tells me something about his character when it's time to toughen up and press the attack.........He ain't really here with the tea party *Little Folk*.

664 posted on 03/03/2012 9:56:58 PM PST by The Cajun (Palin, Free Republic, Mark Levin, Newt......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

>I’m trying to recall when a vile leftist spewing on TV or radio made an apology. I can’t recall one, ever. Anyone?<

Letterman (the pig) apologized to Sarah Palin and her family for making a sexual joke about her daughter and Alex Rodriguez at a Yankees game. Willow, the youngest daughter, was with Governor Palin at the game and the pig Letterman got her mixed up with Bristol.


665 posted on 03/03/2012 10:01:59 PM PST by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
You're wrong. I've seen the left call Rush an "entertainer" on more than a few occasions. Numerous other Freepers recall it too

....I haven't defended Rush on his apology. Nothing that I posted would even indicate that.

If they were claiming he was just an entertainer then they would have NO basis for demanding that Republican congressional leaders repudiate him. They could only do this by claiming her is a leader which is what they been doing for 2+ years.

Are you claiming that the left is logical and consistant, because they aren't. They will call Rush a leader when it suits their propaganda and they will call Rush an entertainer when it suits their propaganda. As I said, the left has called Rush "just an entertainer" numerous times. They do it when they want to dimmish his political commentary.

Break out of the Rush bubble. He caved just like he lectures others to never do.

My comment wasn't about Rush caving. It was about yours and others description of Rush being an entertainer. This is the second time I'm pointing this out to you. Yet you persist.

What part of the following quote from my previous post are you having trouble understanding?


666 posted on 03/03/2012 10:21:08 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
On what basis do you say that it's "the truth" that Ms. Fluke is a "slut"? She could be in a long-term relationship with one man and her monthly birth-control pill expenses would be the same as if she were promiscuous.

She's having sex outside of marriage and that is fornication. Such immoral behavior is a trait of a slut. I'll hasten to add that among the Communist Goals is the following item:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

Right after that cited goal of Communism is this:

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

If Sandra Fluke wishes to engage those long-term sexual relations with that one man you cited, it needs to be within the bonds of marriage. Yes, I'm old fashioned and my views, which I believe are Bible-based, are narrow and intolerant of what passes for morality nowadays. I date back to 1943 and the "New Morality" is the "Old Immorality" in my opinion.

But you asked a question in all sincerity and I gave you my unvarnished honest answer. Even here on Free Republic, where we Christians need not apologize for our convictions, there will be probably some snickers headed my way. So be it. I'll go ahead and take my lumps but will stand by what I just wrote here and cling to my so-called "religious crutch".

In any case, thanks for asking and I hope you'll find my response worthwhile even if you disagree.

667 posted on 03/03/2012 10:38:52 PM PST by re_nortex (DP...that's what I like about Texas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Gilbo_3; Impy; calcowgirl; org.whodat; dforest; BufordP; ...
RE :”You're wrong. I've seen the left call Rush an “entertainer” on more than a few occasions. Numerous other Freepers recall it too. Now you do it

What you are claiming is ridiculous. House libs led by Pelosi sent Boehner a letter DEMANDING that he repudiate Rush's comments. For your claims to make sense the letter would have to say:

Dear Mr House Speaker. A well know entertainer Rush Limbaugh recently insulted a private citizen who is lobbying for woman's issues. We demand that you as House Speaker repudiate this ‘entertainer's’ comments because it is the job of House speaker to review every popular entertainers comments and comment on them

The letter NEVER said that. Dems are saying that Rush is our leader not just an entertainer, Now they got OUR LEADER (as you seem to think he is) to cave, Great logic,

668 posted on 03/03/2012 10:39:38 PM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; rockrr; PalmettoMason; DoughtyOne; stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3; Impy
Well guess what? I thought Rush's comments were funny. Not great taste but entertaining.

Maybe my sense of humor is biased by the likelihood that this episode will help destroy religious freedom and re-elect Obama.

I certainly don't want to include myself among those who chant the mantra "Anything that demeans women is not art!"

I think this apology is an admission that the "slut" affair was not Rush's best work. Remember when Rush introduced the term "feminazi?" I think he was better in those days. Read the comments of one woman who was kicked out of the "women's movement" over a disagreement about whether a song was "art":

And these feminists of the New Haven Women's Liberation Rock Band went into a rage, surrounded me, practically spat in my face, literally my back was to the wall. They're screaming in my face, "Art? Art? Nothing that demeans women can be art!" There it is. There it is! Right from the start. The fascism of the contemporary women's movement.

669 posted on 03/03/2012 10:42:15 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Next time go with “Floosie”.

I prefer "Jezebel." B-) B-P
670 posted on 03/03/2012 10:42:53 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Send Obama back to the ghetto, November 6th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ladyvet
Well now MAYBE we can get back to the economy and what a freaking loser we have in the white house that is tearing this country apart and how he can be beat.

... And gas prices too. The point is, "why in the Hell should we pay for her behaviour?" Make that point and move on soon, right now, I'm more worried about jobs, the economy and energy.
671 posted on 03/03/2012 10:50:11 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Send Obama back to the ghetto, November 6th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; rockrr; PalmettoMason; DoughtyOne; stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3; Impy
RE: “Well guess what? I thought Rush's comments were funny. Not great taste but entertaining.
.....
Maybe my sense of humor is biased by the likelihood that this episode will help destroy religious freedom and re-elect Obama.

Well the libs at MSNBC certainly seemed to think it would.

My thoughts were that this was a funny distraction from the sad fact that congressional Republicans were being slaughtered by Democrats. Republicans have much bigger problems than Rush. That comment by the Santorum supporter about aspirin struck me as more problematic than this. Why is Rush relevant?

672 posted on 03/03/2012 10:55:02 PM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra
The young woman is a very lucky person. Same as in Canada, it is a mind boggling thing for many young women to get a start. I see quite intelligent young women at minimum wage toughing it out a hoping for better things at the local coffee shop.

This thirty year old female has most of her life in front of her. She will start at quite a high level of employment. She is blessed by this system. Rush has a right to be indignant. When the news hit him, he could hardly contain his comment.

Excuse the ramble, but compared with the average young woman out there, she has no need of the extras from the long suffering tax payer.


Yeah, I know what you mean, there are many women out there that are smart but they are in lower status jobs. I wonder about Miss Fluke, did she "lay her way to the top?"
673 posted on 03/03/2012 11:05:01 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Send Obama back to the ghetto, November 6th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
My thoughts were that this was a funny distraction from the sad fact that congressional Republicans were being slaughtered by Democrats. Republicans have much bigger problems than Rush. That comment by the Santorum supporter about aspirin struck me as more problematic than this.

I would say that Rush's "joke" and subsequent surrender is demoralizing for some on the Right, and very encouraging for those on the Left who are paying attention.

Why is Rush relevant?

One answer is that we are debating it on FR. "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - from Hamlet, Act 2, scene 2.

674 posted on 03/03/2012 11:06:48 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
RE:”My thoughts were that this was a funny distraction from the sad fact that congressional Republicans were being slaughtered by Democrats. Republicans have much bigger problems than Rush. That comment by the Santorum supporter about aspirin struck me as more problematic than this.
....
I would say that Rush's “joke” and subsequent surrender is demoralizing for some on the Right, and very encouraging for those on the Left who are paying attention.

Well those on ‘the right’ that think that Rush was some superhuman savior-prophet better wake up because he is a very flawed human with some some unique entertainment abilities who does not have all the answers as they seem to think he does.

Dems were encouraged by Obama beating up on Republicans before Rush said anything about this.

675 posted on 03/03/2012 11:19:17 PM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

“When are we going to go after Bill Maher, Ed Schultz and Keith Olberman? Why do they get off the hook?”

Bill Maher doesn’t have sponsors and is therefore untouchable. As long as he keeps his ratings over 1 million viewers, HBO won’t drop him. The only thing that can sink him is if he lets up on conservatives. His viewers expect his material.

The other two do have sponsors though, so that are fair game.


676 posted on 03/03/2012 11:45:18 PM PST by jackmercer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Well those on ‘the right’ that think that Rush was some superhuman savior-prophet better wake up because he is a very flawed human with some some unique entertainment abilities who does not have all the answers as they seem to think he does.

Indeed. The question is whether he can inadvertently help the Left.

Dems were encouraged by Obama beating up on Republicans before Rush said anything about this.

You may be right that, in the long run, this may not make much of a difference. Or maybe Rush threw gas on the fire. We'll see what happens, although I think an exact cause-and-effect analysis in November will be impossible.

677 posted on 03/03/2012 11:56:01 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

Comment #678 Removed by Moderator

Comment #679 Removed by Moderator

To: Gene Eric
Get a grip.


680 posted on 03/04/2012 12:36:42 AM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

droll...


681 posted on 03/04/2012 12:49:35 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: TexasSecede79366

I forgot about Levin such that Rush was such an overpowering figure.

Thanks.


682 posted on 03/04/2012 2:32:27 AM PST by x1stcav (There's a bunch of us out here spoiling for a fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

“But aren’t we hypocrites if we defend Limbaugh on this issue and attack such “comedians” as Letterman (”slutty flight attendant look”) and Maher for making similar preposterous remarks about Palin?”

No.

Calling that slut a slut is not a preposterous remark, but a simple truth. A single woman who wants $3,000 for contraception is a slut.

Remarks about Governor Palin by such low-life scumbags as Letterman and Maher were malicious lies, and therefore deserving of condemnation.

One is allowed to deplore the deplorable, including sluts and malicious liars, while defending the good, which includes Governor Palin. No hypocrisy is involved.

BTW, you are an agent provocateur from the sleazy byways of the left, right?


683 posted on 03/04/2012 3:44:02 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: XenaLee; Artcore
Honestly, I don't think we're in a position to condemn Rush until we ourselves, each and every one of us is willing to place our entire livelyhood and personal safety on a single issue in front of a mouth-frothing, raving leftist mob.

I'm fine with Rush protecting his own personal interests, don't we all?

When the shooting begins and American lives are on the line for liberty get back to me we can review this issue.

For now, our part is to ensure the sponsors who bailed on him never make a profit again.

684 posted on 03/04/2012 3:58:35 AM PST by Caipirabob (I say we take off and Newt the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Calling that slut a slut is not a preposterous remark, but a simple truth. A single woman who wants $3,000 for contraception is a slut

If you read her testimony carefully, you will discern that she was acting as an advocate for sluts. She did not refer to herself or her habits once.

If she does not meet the Sullivan definition of a public figure (and she may not), then calling her a slut (unless Limbaugh knows her personally) was arguably libel, and definitely slander, and once called out he really had to back down.

685 posted on 03/04/2012 4:09:04 AM PST by Jim Noble ("The Germans: At your feet, or at your throat" - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

“If you read her testimony carefully, you will discern that she was acting as an advocate for sluts. She did not refer to herself or her habits once.”

Let’s see, would that be better described as “a transparent ruse” or “a distinction without a difference?”

I doubt that Limbaugh would have much difficulty proving the truth of his assertion if the matter went to trial.


686 posted on 03/04/2012 4:19:19 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: robrose68

>She siad $3000 during law school. I imagine that is based on a monthly cost, which is how contraceptives are typically purchased, not a “per act” cost.<

Do the math. You can get a prescription for birth control that will set you back $30.00

So the strumpet is so flippin’ dumb it will take her 100 years to get through law school?


687 posted on 03/04/2012 5:26:53 AM PST by Darnright ("I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Artcore

Go back and read her transcript. She was relaying stories from other women at Georgetown, and speaking on their behalf. Nowhere in her transcript does she say SHE is the one needing free contraception. Her sex life is never mentioned.

Everybody is assuming she’s sleeping around. She may be, but that’s not what the transcript shows.

Rush was correct to apologize, because by calling her a slut he (and many people on this board) accused her specifically of being the one with the morals of an alley cat. There’s no evidence of that.


688 posted on 03/04/2012 6:44:56 AM PST by SandyInSeattle (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: melancholy

This seems peculiar in that Rush’s listeners wouldn’t be expected to espouse Fluke’s “values.” The sponsors didn’t want to appear to support his values? Seems like just being a sponsor would alienate Fluke’s fellow believers.


689 posted on 03/04/2012 6:59:07 AM PST by Silentgypsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: jackmercer

If we all cancelled our subscriptions to HBO and told them it was because of Bill Maher, I think they’d take notice.

And this is my point: Conservatives aren’t willing to fight at all. :(


690 posted on 03/04/2012 7:10:05 AM PST by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

You know, you may be on to something there. Maybe she’s so outraged because she doesn’t engage. Or, maybe she has been involved with LGBT for reasons she’s not discussing.

By all means, Rush should apologize to her. Making herself a public figure, through the help of Pelosi and the Democrats, she has certainly warranted no disrespect or condemnation of her opinions. Dissembling about her past, she deserves no circumspection about her motives. Going on national TV, with the help of ‘friends’ in the media, her ‘outrage’ at the mere suggestion—expressed in public by Rush, but thought by many—that she has epressed and opinion for personal reasons, which she couched in carefully crafted public statements.

Or, maybe she just has imaginary friends or is hypothesizing for the sake of having chosen Georgetown admininistration as an opponent in her quest for a right of some kind for the last 3 years; after all, we all have a ‘right’ to engage in sexual activities, no matter our proclivities or perversity, and expect others to pick up the tab in the short or long run.

I am being sarcastic, of course. Frankly, I’d like to see her on a set, in person, with Rush, to defend her actions, opinions, and motives. After all, 0bama has said everyone should speak and listen to ‘the other side’ in considering their own beliefs. What should she have to fear from a conservative who 1) upholds religious freedom as a guarantee of US law, 2) adherance to a moral code (however outdated in her mind—or arrived at late in life as Rush apparently has), and 3) sense of personal responsibility?

To wit, I give you, by way of background on Fluke:

(It’s best laid out/formatted at this link—http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/—, but the text of it is here)

“Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke

Posted by Just a Grunt on Mar 02, 2012 at 10:49 am

For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

While she is described as a “third year law student” they always fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

July 30 2011

Does your campus’s LSRJ chapter face opposition in regard to facilitating a comprehensive conversation about reproductive justice? Well mine definitely does! While my campus has a mix of people with different backgrounds, and a rich liberal arts community, the Midwest doesn’t exactly scream bleeding liberal. Some LSRJ chapters at conservative campuses face opposition in the form of other, more conservative, student run organizations; some face it from their administrations, and others from their peers, or the community in general. Whatever the opposition is, it can be incredibly frustrating and disheartening.

The question is, how do we combat this conservative opposition and oppression, in order to facilitate a discussion and educate others about the RJ movement? I am obviously not alone in facing these problems, as Sandra Fluke of Georgetown lead a packed room in a discussion on this question at the first Issue Caucus that I attended at the Leadership Institute, LSRJ’s national conference at Berkeley.

While no solution was definitively reached, and I personally don’t begin to have the “right” answer, I was really charged by the discussion and feel many great ideas were presented. Some campus chapters decided to take an adversarial approach, feeling it important to use those “scary” words the opposition fears.

Further background research on Ms Fluke reveals that she got her start in government in New York in 2009.

Sandra Fluke’s professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking began with Sanctuary for Families in New York City. There, she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative. While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Sandra was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.

As the 2010 recipient of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant, she researched, wrote, and produced an instructional film on how to apply for a domestic violence restraining order in pro per. She has also interned with the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking; Polaris Project; Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County; Break the Cycle; the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project; NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; Crime Victim and Sexual Assault Services; and the Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County.

Through Georgetown’s clinic programs, Sandra has proposed legislation based on fact-finding in Kenya regarding child trafficking for domestic work, and has represented victims of domestic violence in protection order cases. Sandra is the Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law, and served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. In her first year, she also co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking. Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.

My only question is, how does someone go from being a champion of domestic violence issues to an expert of women’s reproductive health issues?”


Finally, 0bama called Fluke in a gesture of support; has he been reported as having called or otherwise expressed support for the communities devastated by tornados and families who have lost loved ones and perhaps everything they have? I mean, it is only fitting that Branson, MO, ‘does not qualify’ for FEMA funds, right? Or that the folks in Marysville, IN, will just have to fend for themselves without any WH attention, right? Fluke and the Democrats’ obfuscation of tearing both religious freedoms and freedom of speech (as a two-fer) is the principal initiative of the day, jobs, debt, gas prices, poverty caused by inflation, food prices and the common good of Americans be damned, right?


691 posted on 03/04/2012 7:29:35 AM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Calling that slut a slut is not a preposterous remark, but a simple truth. A single woman who wants $3,000 for contraception is a slut.

I am confident that I would not like or approve of that aspect of Fluke's life, but I do not think Limbaugh's choice of that word was wise. But worse than that, he went on to say that she should sell sex tapes to pay for birth control, and in so doing, dragged himself at least temporarily down to the level of Letterman and Maher. If you approve of Limbaugh's "sex tape" comments, and disapprove of Letterman and Maher, that is hypocrisy.

I hope Limbaugh snaps out of it and returns to his old self, which was not helping Obama hold on to power.

At a minimum, ignoring a very important part of my post, you tried to smear me. Either you are a careless reader, or your post was dishonest. That's a shame, because I think you really hate Obama and his gang as much as I do.

692 posted on 03/04/2012 7:50:46 AM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Are you claiming that the left is logical and consistant, because they aren't. They will call Rush a leader when it suits their propaganda and they will call Rush an entertainer when it suits their propaganda. As I said, the left has called Rush "just an entertainer" numerous times. They do it when they want to dimmish his political commentary.

What you are claiming is ridiculous. House libs led by Pelosi sent Boehner a letter DEMANDING that he repudiate Rush's comments. For your claims to make sense the letter would have to say:....

Your example doesn't contradict my point. It's ridiculous to think that it does.

Do you need it explained to you why it doesn't?

693 posted on 03/04/2012 7:52:36 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 668 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Now they got OUR LEADER (as you seem to think he is) to cave, Great logic

To claim that Rush is not "just an entertainer" is not logically the same thing as claiming that Rush is "our leader".

Don't try to put words in my mouth. You're not smart enough.

694 posted on 03/04/2012 7:59:06 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 668 | View Replies]

To: The Wizard

“he was right and his fans stand behind him”

Exactly. I don’t think those advertisers are going to get the slut to make up the financial difference they are going to lose, she said she doesn’t even have the money to buy condoms. However, maybe she could be the spokesman for Sleep Number beds! Double HA!


695 posted on 03/04/2012 8:11:25 AM PST by CodeToad (NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

I agree with you. Rush should have known better than to wade into this territory. While I totally agree that taxpayers should not have to pay for someone else’s birth control, Rush stepped in it and opened himself up to this.

Not a good moment for Rush.

Obviously, we really do not know if this woman is a slut. After finding out what her agenda is, we could safely
qualify her as political “whore” for the left.

My upset the other day is that this has become an issue now. All the media is doing is hitting our candidates and trying to force them to take sides. Either thay have to agree she may be a slut, or denounce Rush.

I like Rush and have listened to him for years, but this was not a better moment for Rush in the climate we have now.


696 posted on 03/04/2012 8:12:17 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

“and once called out he really had to back down.”

Not really. Rush by defeinition is an entertainer and just like the liberals such as Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a cu** he has the same protections under the law.

Why do we always feel the need to run and hide?


697 posted on 03/04/2012 8:14:59 AM PST by CodeToad (NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: dforest
Thanks.

After finding out what her agenda is, we could safely qualify her as political “whore” for the left.

At Georgetown law, she is the former president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, an editor for the Journal of Gender and the Law, and vice president of the Women's Legal Alliance. She has a bachelor's degree in Feminist, Gender & Sexuality studies from Cornell.

Maybe she has a pleasant personality, but I would not like to be locked in a room with her.

698 posted on 03/04/2012 8:26:57 AM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3; Impy; ...
RE :”To claim that Rush is not “just an entertainer” is not logically the same thing as claiming that Rush is “our leader”.

Now you are contradicting on your own argument. Are you claiming you don't consider him a leader ? When your main ridiculous argument is that ‘the left’ is calling Rush an entertainer instead?

I don't know if you were waiting for your leader, err your ‘political commentator’, HA_HA, to tell you what happened on the Sunday shows but I will give you a heads up.

Pretty much every MSNBC host demanded that the Republican on the show explain their position on what Rush said about Sandra Fluke and his apology to her. NOT one called Rush an entertainer as you claim they are. If they did then the Republicans could have all replied :'You answered your own question'.

Rush IS an entertainer and a very successful one. He talks about golf, football, his experience at parties, his experiences traveling, etc, etc, and a few jokes about Democrats, Don't do the LEFT’s bidding by making him into something more.

699 posted on 03/04/2012 8:31:27 AM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3; Impy; calcowgirl; ...
Correction :
Pretty much every Network Sunday talk show host demanded that the Republican on the show explain their position on what Rush said about Sandra Fluke and his apology to her. NOT one called Rush an entertainer as you claim they are. If they did then the Republicans could have all replied :’You answered your own question”.

Cantor took the liberal bait and gave Rush an especially hard slap-down, loser. Newt's was more measured.

700 posted on 03/04/2012 8:50:31 AM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700701-743 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