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

Skip to comments.

Why I Apologized to Sandra Fluke
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | March 5, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 03/05/2012 10:29:09 AM PST by Kaslin

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Yeah, I knew it was getting bad. I was watching the media on Saturday, and I said, "You know what? I gotta call myself and cancel and suspend the Two If By Tea advertising." So I called myself to cancel the advertising. I got a busy signal so I couldn't cancel my own company's advertising. So Two If By Tea remains a sponsor of the Rush Limbaugh program and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.

Great to have you here, folks, looking forward to talking with you today as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears. Our telephone number, 800-282-2882, the e-mail address ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

While I have your attention, give me 30 minutes here. It's all I ask and then you can do what you want. I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I've read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don't expect -- and I know you don't, either -- morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They've demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It's what they do. It's what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.

Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.

The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It's important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple heartfelt. That's why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, 'cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.

What's gone on since and what really is going on here is what we all know to be true. Our president, Barack Obama, has a socialist agenda when it comes to health care, when it comes to birth control, when it comes to virtually every aspect of his agenda. In this case, Barack Obama wants the government, his government making moral decisions about what treatments, prescriptions, pills you pay for through your insurance premiums. He isn't willing to let you or the market make that decision for yourself.

Now, the hearing that started all of this, I want to go back and put the timeline here in context, start at the very beginning. The hearing that started all of this was called by Darrell Issa, a California Republican, he's the head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa is on our side. His point in calling this hearing was to get facts into the record that otherwise would not be aired. But his committee is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and there are rules and procedures that are followed in calling witnesses. What this was all about was the president of the United States acting extra-constitutionally, mandating that Catholic churches and their schools provide contraceptives, abortifacients. He doesn't have that power constitutionally. He cannot mandate these things.

That was the original purpose of the hearing. He was to get facts into the record that otherwise would not be aired, but his committee is made up of Republicans and Democrats and there are rules and procedures that are followed in calling witnesses. So the Democrats tried to play a game with Darrell Issa and his committee, and he rejected it. What they did was, they requested a witness for his hearing, a man named Barry Lynn to make their points for them. Barry Lynn is a guy that remits the Democrat point of view. They asked for him in advance. Issa's committee checked him out, invited him, and prepared for his testimony. Issa agreed he has a degree of expertise about the subject matter of the hearing, which was not contraception. That's what Obama wants to turn this to.

Obama is sorely hurting with women in preelect polls. He wanted to turn this into an issue much as they used to use abortion. So the Democrats played the game. What happened next is instructive, and it's very important. At literally the last minute the Democrats decided they want Sandra Fluke. What happened next, at the last minute the Democrats decided that Sandra Fluke would be a better witness for them, not because she had any special knowledge or credentials like Barry Lynn has, but because her optics as a woman and a college student, a 30-year-old college student and an activist on Democrat issues, by the way.

They thought all of that would show better than Barry Lynn. Now, this is at 4:30 p.m., 4:30 in the afternoon, the day before the hearing that the Democrats asked Issa to un-invite Barry Lynn, the guy they had asked for originally, and replace him with Sandra Fluke. Darrell Issa said (paraphrased), "Sorry, it's too late. She hasn't been vetted. We don't know who she is. She doesn't have any real qualifications to appear before this committee. We don't have the time to prepare for her and ask her questions. So the answer is: 'No. You cannot have her testify.'" All of this, by the way, is in a very interesting Washington Examiner article from last week, and I've linked to it at RushLimbaugh.com so you can read it yourself.

Now, the Democrats and the leftists sensed opportunity over this controversy that they created themselves. They publicly turned the situation they created to their own advantage. They invite Barry Lynn. They disinvite him at the last moment and they want him replaced with Sandra Fluke. "Who is this? We don't know who she is." The second panel of witnesses. It was Carolyn Maloney. If you don't recall last week, Carolyn Maloney, Democrat from New York, started shouting, "Where are the women? Where are the women?" They start saying Republicans hate women; they started attacking Issa and Republicans on the committee, saying, "They don't want hear from women! They're misogynist, sexist," or what have you.

Issa's committee invited the Democrat choice again, Barry Lynn, and the Democrats on the committee tried to replace him at the very last minute with this sympathetic woman when it was too late for the committee. So again they said no. So the Democrats played their game of lies, and Issa complained. On February 16th, he said, "The Democrats on his committee have appeared," this is a quote, "outright giddy in attempting to distort the testimony offered and purpose of the hearing." You bet they did. They wanted to turn this from a committee hearing on Obama and his unconstitutional mandate to the issue of contraception so as to bring back to life page 1-A of the Democrat playbook: Republicans Hate Women.

They wanted to change the whole subject. So how did they do it? Well, the Democrats have their own little subcommittee called the steering committee. This subsets inside the larger oversight and reform committee that Issa chairs. And they wanted their sympathetic witness on the record, Sandra Fluke. So they called her to testify before them, not Issa's committee. The subcommittee. They staged what was essentially a conference to look like a committee hearing. She gave the testimony that she was going to give to the full committee. It was taped and released and made to look like a committee hearing. And Darrell Issa had been right all along. Her testimony was not that of an expert.

It was just another non-expert person in this case, in Sandra's case: A 30-year-old, longtime birth control activist who went back to law school after a career of years of championing birth-control issues. In fact, she told stories less about birth control as a social tool (which was, of course, the left's true agenda) and more about birth control as a medication for treating other conditions, such as pregnancy. To the left, pregnancy is a disease. If you're listening to me for the first time, you may say, "Well, that's crazy." It's not. They treat pregnancy as a disease for political purposes. All of this, folks, is political.

Sandra Fluke gave vague examples based on unnamed friends who she says couldn't afford birth control to treat medical conditions they had, since Georgetown University wouldn't pay for them. Georgetown paid for all of their other medical treatment, but it wouldn't pay for the birth control pills that these doctors prescribed should they be necessary -- or so she says. We still don't know who any of these friends of hers are, these other women, and we don't know what happened to them. Her testimony was hearsay, and it was unprovable. And Issa was right not to let her give the testimony, particularly when the Democrats foisted her on the committee at the very last minute for the express purpose of pulling this fast one, this trick.

Now, let's get a few facts on the record here. Georgetown is a Jesuit University. It's Jesuits, run by the Jesuits, which are a Catholic order of priests. Their policy on birth control is not exactly a secret. It's not given to you in a sealed envelope after you sign up. It's out there for everybody to see. It's a Catholic university! Everybody that goes to there knows. Miss Fluke stated on occasion she went there specifically to change the policy. If birth control insurance is important to you as an enrolling student, and you find out that Georgetown doesn't offer it, you might want to attend (or work at) a school that isn't run by Catholics. I mean, just a thought.

But if you know the place doesn't offer contraceptives when you sign up, and that is your big political issue, then why are you really there? Actually, they know what they're doing. They intentionally target schools like Georgetown to advance an agenda of ultimately forcing them to abandon their religious beliefs. All of this is to serve Obama's agenda. The agenda he worked all summer on. He abandoned it only when America stood up, united, and this said they would not tolerate tearing down religion to increase government's control over our lives. You did that. You stood up to him. You made him stop. That was a proud moment for all of us.

This is his second attempt at mandating Catholic churches and other organizations (under the cloak of a so-called committee hearing) be forced to provide contraceptives against their moral conscience, dictates, what have you. So Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old birth control activist gives unverified and inexpert testimony about how Georgetown's long-standing and public policy has hurt her unnamed friends. And let's be clear on something else. I haven't called Georgetown to see if they pay for birth control pills when being used to treat her medical conditions. I have no idea if they do or don't. If somebody at Georgetown wants to weigh in on that, I'd be interested.

But the point here is that this was an issue that represents a tiny, tiny slice of what the Democrats really want here. They use Sandra Fluke to create a controversy. Sandra Fluke used them to advance her agenda, which is to force a religious institution to abandon their principles in order to meet hers. Now, all of this is what I should have told you last week, 'cause this is what happened. I use satire. I use absurdity to illustrate the absurd. The story at the Cybercast News Service characterized a portion of her testimony as sounding like (based on her own financial figures) she was engaging in sexual activity so often she couldn't afford it. I focused on that because it was simple trying to persuade people, change people's minds.

I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability, people providing for themselves when they're totally able to. The government has no business doing any of this, getting in people's bedrooms and mandating that other citizens pay for other citizens' social activities and so forth. That was the wrong one to focus on. I acted too much like the leftists who despise me. I descended to their level, using names and exaggerations to describe Sandra Fluke. It's what we have come to know and expect of them, but it's way beneath me. And it's way beneath you. It was wrong, and that's why I've apologized, 'cause I succumbed. I descended to their level. Don't be mad at them or mad at her. Everybody here was being true to their nature except me. I'm the one who had the falling on this, and for that I genuinely apologized for using those words to describe Ms. Fluke.

Now, I've gotta take a break but I'm not through.

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: classact; contraceptivemandate; rush; rushlimbaugh; sandrafluke; sandytheslut
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-177 next last
To: Yo-Yo
"I'm waiting for the Defamation of Character lawsuit..."

"Waiting", or salivating?
51 posted on 03/05/2012 11:20:18 AM PST by FrankR (You are only enslaved to the extent of the entitlements you receive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Are you sure you read MY post? If so, it might be wise to get your vision checked.

Since when does having a favorable opinion of Rush Limbaugh or having happened to join FR in May 2011 make someone a troll?


52 posted on 03/05/2012 11:20:35 AM PST by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

I think then Rush has a distorted set of ethics in this regard, then, if you cannot call a woman who is clearly a slut, a slut. And begging for money from others to keep being a slut.

Calling someone something they are, how can that be a violation of ethics? It’s like not calling a muslim terrorist a muslim terrorist. This is how we wind up having people call what Major Hasan, a muslim extremist terrorist in our own army, instead of calling it a terrorist act, “workplace violence”.

Don’t apologize or be afraid to call things what they are.


53 posted on 03/05/2012 11:22:16 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Thanks, that is a relevant part of this.


54 posted on 03/05/2012 11:22:28 AM PST by Made In The USA (This post may be recorded for quality purposes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I would never, ever apply the word "slut" to Sandra Fluke nor to any of the women she represents.

HBO's “Real Time” host Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a 'twat'.

I doubt either of us would use that word. But there was no outcry - liberal women were not offended -they joined in the laughter.

On a political level, I find it hard being force to accept Maher's comments - while also being forced, by the Democrat-media complex to condemn Rush's comment.

55 posted on 03/05/2012 11:23:00 AM PST by GOPJ (Democrat-media complex—buried stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
Again, she was talking about hormonal birth control and lying about the costs. She said nothing about condoms. The cost of condoms is irrelevant - she was talking about how much hormonal birth control cost without insurance coverage, and (to my knowledge, at least).

Jumping from "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school" (her statement) to an assumption that 'hormonal contraceptives don't cost that much, so she must have been talking about condoms, which means that she must be using 60 condoms a day' is not "connecting the dots." It's making a gigantic leap.

56 posted on 03/05/2012 11:24:09 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Yup. Damn right.


57 posted on 03/05/2012 11:25:03 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Made In The USA

If I told you I needed $3,000 a month to cover my ‘bar bill’ - would you make any kind of assumption about how much alcohol I consume?


58 posted on 03/05/2012 11:26:07 AM PST by GOPJ (Democrat-media complex—buried stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; GOPJ; Conscience of a Conservative; GrannyK; SumProVita; Mrs. Don-o

Nancy Pelosi’s initiative to convince Sandra Fluke to testify to the principle of contraception as a health care necessity is simply wrong. Colleges and universities provide accidental injury/major medical and not traditional employee health insurance to students. Since students are generally young and not subject to the myriad diseases confronting older people or families with children, the coverage is limited. Not only contraceptives, but many medical procedures and drugs are not included. Since sexual intercourse is an optional, and not a required activity of law school students, contraceptives should not be among policy provisions.

Ms. Fluke testified that 40% of the women in law school considered sexual intercourse a compelling or preferred recreational activity. Therefore, the proper place to make her case is with the Georgetown University Student Association. The university encourages students to actively engage in more than 200 co-curricular clubs and activities. She testified to what would be more accurately described as a club sport or performing art, than as a health care necessity.

The analogy should not be considered facetious, but should awaken people to the limits of targeted, low cost insurance programs.


59 posted on 03/05/2012 11:27:16 AM PST by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

It is not a vulgar word we can’t say in mixed company. We are not provincial. It’s not a swear. It is an accurate term. Would you rather he say “harlot”? Or “a woman who gives it away for free”? Or a woman who needs to put an aspirin between her legs?


60 posted on 03/05/2012 11:27:31 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Fluke is arguably not only a public figure but also an Obama campaign surrogate by the fact that her congressional testimony supported White House policy. The Rush Limbaugh show today probably set a record for listenership so Rush's apology was heard by more people than those who heard the controversial remarks. The “Jersey Girls”—who were survivors of 9/11 victims—screamed "foul" when Ann Coulter wrote that they were “enjoying” the deaths of their husbands. The “Jersey Girls” were in fact shameless publicity hounds who had gotten into public advocacy including issues not related to 9/11, like campaigning for John Kerry in 2004. Fluke is just as much a public partisan for Obama as the “Jersey Girls” were for Kerry. Fluke is just craftier about it.
61 posted on 03/05/2012 11:27:38 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

I disagree.

But that’s okay.


62 posted on 03/05/2012 11:30:42 AM PST by SandyInSeattle (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Unfortunately, yes.

This is a leverage point that will be used for a long time. they never stop attacking. No matter what you do, it’s about exploiting weakness, not the apology from you.

And for those who say ‘we don’t use disgusting language’ who are you to determine a valid term that is tossed around in our own good Christian sermons describing sexually promiscuous people, can’t be uttered by our side? Have you heard the words Rush has used on his show over the years? He just used the word “bitch” in the second hour in a sentence. He’s called NOW the NAGs, talked about the 1st Calvary Amazon Battalion and discussed how fierce they’d be that one week when that time of the month occurred, etc. He’s talked about Hillary’s testicle lockbox. He’s talked about plenty of stuff with humorous language.

Now he calls a slut a slut, and somehow THIS crosses some newly-discovered ethical line? Gimme a break. He accurately labeled her. No valid reason for any apology or retraction.


63 posted on 03/05/2012 11:34:16 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: arrdon

Probably passing out her “free love” at the occutard camps. That way she won’t get refused because they are all ugly and smelly down there.

I doubt a blind person would sleep with her. I bet she smells from all her lovers. She’s a liberal after all and soap to them is like garlic to a vampire.


64 posted on 03/05/2012 11:36:02 AM PST by Jack Burton007 (This is Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express, and I'm talkin' to whoever's listenin' out there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

Well that’s fine we disagree, but I am still curious as to what term he could have called her - in your view - that would have been acceptable?


65 posted on 03/05/2012 11:36:43 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

She went public at the hearings.


66 posted on 03/05/2012 11:39:13 AM PST by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
a valid term that is tossed around in our own good Christian sermons describing sexually promiscuous people

I have honestly never heard Pastor Ray use that word in his sermons. Ever.

For a woman, that word is extremely vulgar and insulting, second only to the "c" word. I assume you are a man, so I don't expect you to see it the same way. We'll have to agree to disagree.

67 posted on 03/05/2012 11:39:13 AM PST by SandyInSeattle (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

Agreed, very disappointing, and he is fuzzy-headed and evasive on radio today, too. Some higher-up bitch-slapped him, and he caved.


68 posted on 03/05/2012 11:40:55 AM PST by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
I am still curious as to what term he could have called her - in your view - that would have been acceptable?

He didn't have to call her any names at all. He could have made his point very well without doing that.

69 posted on 03/05/2012 11:41:42 AM PST by SandyInSeattle (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: freeangel
Did she not make herself a public figure by asking to testify in Congress?

No, you don't always make yourself a public figure by asking to testify before Congress. You start getting in the grey area of being a limited public figure though if you'e "trying to influence the resolution of issues."

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a Federal Appeals Court's definition of a 'limited public figure' as someone who "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."

Without spending some time and money on Lexus or Westlaw, I won't go further, but my guess is that simply showing up to provide factual testimony probably doesn't rise to the level of thrusting yourself into the forefront of a particular public controversy.

When you aren't allowed to testify before Congress, but you permit a staged presentation before national network cameras, like Sandra Fluke did, it smells like thrusting into the forefront of a particular public controversy to me.

Vote for me for Supreme Court Justice and I'd say: limited public figure.

70 posted on 03/05/2012 11:47:45 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Well, no, if hormonal birth control, which we all know is taken at a set dose and is not taken per sexual encounter, does NOT cost the amount she mentioned, then we would have to assume she is either lying, doesn’t know what she’s talking about, or is talking about some other type which *could* cost that much. Any sort of birth control that is used per time *could* cost that much if you had a whole lot of sex. Why is that not connecting the dots?


71 posted on 03/05/2012 11:49:24 AM PST by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
I believe she IS a public figure. That wasn't a real hearing - it was a PR stunt. It was a stunt by liberals for the sake of a press that never found a PR stunt done by liberals they didn't 'buy'.

The New York Times never figure out that Occupy and ACORN were hiring protesters for their 'rent a mobs'. Just never figured it out - even when ads were reprinted all over the Internet.

The Democrat-media complex also saw Anita Hill as a poor defenseless waif - even thought she was a law school graduate AND a practicing civil rights attorney - yet those same members of the Democrat-media complex were UNABLE to see that a woman like Paula Jones - who didn't graduate from college - and was a low level state employee - might have been overwhelmed by having the State Police of Arkansas 'escort' her to a hotel room to meed with Clinton.

Evil double standard. Typical of the Democrat-Media Compled.

Anyhow, the 'waif' wasn't require to testify - it wasn't a real hearing - and that makes her a person who held herself out to the public for a performance. Rush would have to hire a First Amendment lawyer, but I'm confident he would win.

72 posted on 03/05/2012 11:53:28 AM PST by GOPJ (Democrat-media complex—buried stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Retain Mike
Ms. Fluke testified that 40% of the women in law school considered sexual intercourse a compelling or preferred recreational activity.

When. Where. Not before the Democrats of Congress. I have her statement in front of me. I watched the testimony live and I've watched it replayed.

73 posted on 03/05/2012 11:53:41 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle; Secret Agent Man

Just as an aside, I’d love to get past the whole name calling thing on both sides. I don’t see it happening, but it would be refreshing. I personally think this outrage over what Rush said is faux as it can be, since the same people crying about it (most of them at any rate) have not said a word about Bill Maher or Keith O etc saying equally vile things about conservative women. This is purely and simply about shutting up the opposition.


74 posted on 03/05/2012 11:54:27 AM PST by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
I believe she IS a public figure. That wasn't a real hearing - it was a PR stunt. It was a stunt by liberals for the sake of a press that never found a PR stunt done by liberals they didn't 'buy'.

The New York Times never figured out Occupy and ACORN were hiring protesters for their 'rent a mobs'. Just never figured it out - even when ads were reprinted all over the Internet.

The Democrat-media complex also saw Anita Hill as a poor defenseless waif - even thought she was a law school graduate AND a practicing civil rights attorney - yet those same members of the Democrat-media complex were UNABLE to see that a woman like Paula Jones - who didn't graduate from college - and was a low level state employee - might have been overwhelmed by having the State Police of Arkansas 'escort' her to a hotel room to meed with Clinton.

Evil double standard. Typical of the Democrat-Media Compled.

Anyhow, the 'waif' wasn't require to testify - it wasn't a real hearing - and that makes her a person who held herself out to the public for a performance. Rush would have to hire a First Amendment lawyer, but I'm confident he would win.

75 posted on 03/05/2012 11:54:53 AM PST by GOPJ (Democrat-media complex—buried stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
This is purely and simply about shutting up the opposition.

You're right. It's about shutting up the opposition.

76 posted on 03/05/2012 11:56:36 AM PST by GOPJ (Democrat-media complex—buried stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

I’d say you and I would get along just fine thank you. It’s 5:00 somewhere.

If she didn’t explicitly state that she was promiscuous, she certainly enabled a fair assumption to be made. I get that.

As a fan of Rush I hate to say this, but I think Rush got used. Ms. Fluke got what she wanted: publicity, distraction from the disaster known as obamacare and it’s mandates, and gain sympathy from other small minded libtards who perceive this as Republicans somehow trying to keep women from having access to birth control.


77 posted on 03/05/2012 11:58:17 AM PST by Made In The USA (This post may be recorded for quality purposes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
"Waiting", or salivating?

Yeah, salivating. That's why I've been on FR since 1998, just so I could troll on this thread.

78 posted on 03/05/2012 12:00:01 PM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
Heard this live. It was depressing.

If you heard it live, then you know that Sandra Fluke never mentioned her own sex life, her own use of contraceptives, or her own cost of contraceptives, a single time.

And that for four days, when Rush Limbaugh kept saying things like Fluke is "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk", he was making it all up.

If you heard it live, then you know that Fluke presented a bunch of (perhaps made-up) stories of women who needed birth control pills for medical reasons, but had insurers who wouldn't provide the birth control pills because they were also contraceptives.

Rush blew it. He got too cute by half and claimed this 30-year-old lady said a lot of stuff she never said. Now he has to back down because . . . Rush made all of that stuff up about Fluke's sex life and use of contraceptives. And he specifically based his use of 'slut' and 'prostitute' on his own made-up claims about her alleged testimony about her sex life.

79 posted on 03/05/2012 12:01:51 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reproductive health care

http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/


80 posted on 03/05/2012 12:05:03 PM PST by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

“It is not a vulgar word we can’t say in mixed company. We are not provincial.”

I am certainly NOT *provincial* as the liberals might be tempted to peg me. How old are you anyway? I would consider that to be a vulgar word and would not want it used in front of my family.


81 posted on 03/05/2012 12:13:33 PM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
Heard this live. It was depressing.

Depressing?

Poor baby!

It was REFRESHING!!

82 posted on 03/05/2012 12:19:34 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

“He didn’t have to call her any names at all. He could have made his point very well without doing that.

Exactly! And he could easily make the points without even referring to her. We must learn to out-think the liberals and use a TON of self-control.

We KNOW that liberals are not really too fond of the virtue of self-control.

;-o


83 posted on 03/05/2012 12:19:34 PM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01
I agree - I heard it too and got the sinking sense that Rush wasn’t his usual bold self

What planet did you get the relay from?

He was VERY bold!!

What you mistook for lack of it, was a CONTROLed statement. One that had been gone over to be sure it contained only CORRECT words.

To condense it: "I am sorry for using the INAPPROPRIATE words."

ERGO; there ARE some 'words' out there that are less 'provocative', but express EXACTLY the same meaning.

84 posted on 03/05/2012 12:24:42 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01
I agree - I heard it too and got the sinking sense that Rush wasn’t his usual bold self

No boldness?

I am sorry I descended to THEIR level?

That's a smack in the face if I've ever heard one!

85 posted on 03/05/2012 12:25:58 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

Amen!


86 posted on 03/05/2012 12:26:25 PM PST by SandyInSeattle (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01
I agree - I heard it too and got the sinking sense that Rush wasn’t his usual bold self

No boldness?

I am sorry if some advertisers do NOT want 'your' business. I can get more; as I REJECT some very big accounts all the time!

87 posted on 03/05/2012 12:27:14 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
Ms. Fluke is likely a “limited-purpose public figure,” since she put herself in the middle of a public debate over a mater of public controversy.

And, in a few years, she will be as venerated as Cindy Sheehan is today.

88 posted on 03/05/2012 12:29:16 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I would never, ever apply the word "slut" to Sandra Fluke nor to any of the women she represents.

Can you imagine a scenario whenin you might just call some woman a SLUT?

89 posted on 03/05/2012 12:31:33 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I would never, ever apply the word "slut" to Sandra Fluke nor to any of the women she represents.

Can you imagine a scenario wherein you might just call some woman a SLUT?

90 posted on 03/05/2012 12:31:45 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

In all this kerfuffle, what I still can’t understand is this: How does a third-year law student find the time to have any kind of social life, let alone one as promiscuous as she claims?

Unless, of course, she’s on “the Obama plan” :D


91 posted on 03/05/2012 12:32:35 PM PST by ssaftler (Obama 2008: "Hope and Change" Obama 2012: "Excuses and Blame")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Sorry.

I should have read your ENTIRE post, before jumping on the first sentence.


92 posted on 03/05/2012 12:33:34 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

Which is why I said that his mistake was in making it personal and in his apology, he should have addressed it in that way.

He says that his riff about her was brought on by a satirical observation by someone else regarding the amount of sex one must be having if contraception costs are #3,000 over the course of three years.

Rush likes to push the envelope and go where so many conservatives are afraid to go. And, I think he has thought that he could get away with just about anything in exposing the left’s agenda.

I don’t fault him for realizing that he went too far in attacking this woman personally, but the impression is out there now and nothing he says will dispel it....he was intimidated into an apology and thus not so fearlessly bold as he has seemed up til now.


93 posted on 03/05/2012 12:37:15 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

There were two comments though that stunned me even more than a misogynist calling sexually active women sluts

http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/


94 posted on 03/05/2012 12:38:22 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita
We will NOT lower ourselves to use their disgusting language.

Tell Lurker

95 posted on 03/05/2012 12:41:33 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Depressing because of Rush’s bowing to outside pressures.

Refreshing? I suppose, if one finds eating crow refreshing.

If you mean however, that Rush offered a real apology rather than an “if I offended anyone” type, then I suppose I could agree with that.


96 posted on 03/05/2012 12:41:48 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle
For a woman, that word is extremely vulgar and insulting, second only to the "c" word.

"If yer catchin' flak' you must be over the target."

97 posted on 03/05/2012 12:45:19 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Self-control is a virtue that we ALL need. Often, those who need it the most refuse to listen.


98 posted on 03/05/2012 12:45:24 PM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle
He didn't have to call her any names at all. He could have made his point very well without doing that.

And this is EXACTLY what he said today.

99 posted on 03/05/2012 12:46:19 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65
In the last 15 years has Rush ever been about anything but Rush?

If that's your perception and it bothers you so much, the easiest solution to your problem is to change the radio dial and avoid these Rush threads.

Most of the folks here are Rush fans and are concerned about the liberal assaults on him and the rest of talk radio. And as such, we like to keep our conversations pro Rush.

By stopping by and dropping your turd, you've added nothing to the conversation.

Tell you what my friend, why don't you and a number of your like minded friends start your own "anti-Rush" threads where you can discuss your various hatreds of the guy while at the same time leaving the rest of us alone?

I can promise you, we will respect the nature of YOUR THREAD and leave you alone...........Fair enough?

100 posted on 03/05/2012 12:47:43 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (The only solution to this primary is a shoot out! Last person standing picks the candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-177 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