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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-177 next last
To: Hot Tabasco
""we like to keep our conversations pro Rush.""

And I thought it was FREE Republic. Is criticism of Rush now seen in the same vein as support for Romney? Why not petition the Robinsons to have me banned? That seems to be the way to go these days.

121 posted on 03/05/2012 2:04:29 PM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65
Why not petition the Robinsons to have me banned?

Because you're not worth it dude. When I'm faced with overwhelming stink, I just hold my nose and move on.......

Congratulations, you just hijacked this thread and made it about "YOU".

122 posted on 03/05/2012 2:20:41 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 121 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
She has been a long-time left-wing activist on these issues and was probably a public figure for these purposes even apart from her "testimony" the other day.

No. No. Just no. Hell no. I'm not certain you understand how extreme the 'public figure' test is under Times v. Sullivan. The answer is no. She was not a public figure for the purposes of Times v. Sullivan. Stretch it. Pull it. Try all you want. The answer is no.

Show me the wiki pages on her before her presentation. Show me all of the newspaper articles on her. Show me all of the youtube videos of her speeches and presentations and the times she's led movements. Show me all of her publications. Show me all of the web references to her name that are dated before her appearance. Give me the names of 100 people who knew who she was before she appeared before the Democrats. If she were a public figure on this topic then she would have been recognized by Congress and would have been permitted to testify on this topic instead of making some lame presentation in front of the Democrats

She. Was. Not. A. Public. Figure.

123 posted on 03/05/2012 2:21:16 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

It’s totally fake. These same women paraded around in slut walks wearing tshirts with ‘slut’ and holding banners with ‘slut’ on them. They happily label themselves sluts.


124 posted on 03/05/2012 2:25:02 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

You did not answer my question. What term(s) could he have used that would be acceptable to you? If he couldn’t call her a slut, what other word could he use you’d be okay with? Degenerate? Promiscuous? Whorish? Loose? Easy?

Anything?


125 posted on 03/05/2012 2:27:12 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | 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. Therefore, the proper place to make her case is with the Georgetown University Student Association.

I was a student government representative in college ( many many years ago ) - and YOU, Mike have a good point. It's funny - but still a good point. Student Government has lots of money to allocate - I'm sure the folks at Georgetown would be thrilled to be first with this... the Democrat-media complex will give them all the 'coverage' they want... (no pun intended)

126 posted on 03/05/2012 2:29:12 PM PST by GOPJ (Democrat-media complex¬óburied stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

[ 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. ]

I liked his apology it more or less exposed their own tactics back to them.


127 posted on 03/05/2012 2:29:28 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Thank you, thank you.

:)


128 posted on 03/05/2012 2:30:34 PM PST by GOPJ (Democrat-media complex¬óburied stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

“She. Was. Not. A. Public. Figure.”

Putting a period after every word is about as mature and effective as stamping your feet when arguing.

“If she were a public figure on this topic then she would have been recognized by Congress and would have been permitted to testify on this topic instead of making some lame presentation in front of the Democrats”

You are confusing the question as to whether she is an “expert” with the question as to whether she is a public figure on these issues. From her documented background, she has attempted to thrust herself into the public debate on these issues for years.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but a defamation suit by her appears highly problematic.


129 posted on 03/05/2012 2:34:40 PM PST by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

I did answer you.

Name calling is unnecessary and inappropriate. Period.


130 posted on 03/05/2012 2:35:00 PM PST by Not A Snowbird (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

Ha! It sure isn’t the second worst word with the women I know.

I agree the c-word’s the worst. I think there are a few before slut however. Female dog (-itch) usually is number two with the women I know. Then I would say “whore” would be number 3. I’d even say pu**y would be before the word slut.


131 posted on 03/05/2012 2:35:58 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

If someone acts like a slut, what is wrong identifying the person as a slut? If she’s not getting paid, it’s not right to call her a whore as they trade sex for money.

Since when can we not identify people by their behavior? We call liars, liars. We call prostitutes, prostitutes. We call murderers, murderers. We call thieves, thieves. We call cheaters, cheaters. We call degenerates, degenerates. But now, in 2012, according to you, we cannot call a slut, a slut.

That is why I am asking what term would you use for her that is acceptable that accurately describes her based on her behavior. You just want to punt the question. I want to know what term I can describe a person like her that WON’T offend you but accurately describes her based on her sexual activity.


132 posted on 03/05/2012 2:49:12 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
If someone acts like a slut, what is wrong identifying the person as a slut?

Read her testimony. At no point was her personal sexual behavior mentioned. She testified on behalf of other women in real and/or hypothetical situations, not on behalf of herself.

I'm not going to hang a derogatory label on her when there's no evidence it's deserved.

133 posted on 03/05/2012 3:02:11 PM PST by Not A Snowbird (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Wow, I had not thought of that. But what you write is always subject to unintended consequences. I can definitely see the University of Oregon in Eugene where I live taking up this cause as a new “right”.


134 posted on 03/05/2012 3:07:51 PM PST by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Female dog (-itch) usually is number two with the women I know.

Really? Maybe it's a generational thing.

135 posted on 03/05/2012 3:08:16 PM PST by Not A Snowbird (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
some of you are a pristine example of what he talked about today. He dose not have to be like you people. He didn't have to call fluke a slut to make his point. He apologized for that... He apologized for using a word the left uses, instead of wording it in such a way that meant the same thing.

Some of you people over the years have made me sick. You wonder why we are losing? Because you superior intellects cause 10 times more damage than good to our cause. Bunch of crybabies who start tantrums when things don't go their way. Where the hell is this bitterness against the left? Against those who truly need correcting? Damned bunch of arm chair generals anonymously being big shots behind a computer screen. You all outta be ashamed of yourselves for being morons. Rush is the only person we got who tells it AT LEAST 90%. And AT LEAST 90% of the issues. WTF do you do??

Ahhh im wastin my friggin time....

136 posted on 03/05/2012 3:23:34 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

there are 117 thousand companies lining up to get advertising with Rush. a lot of them being conservative owned companies. Rush commented on the companies who chose politics over profit. and he held back as laugh as he said by....

IOWs... you’re wrong. He had NO reason to apologize. If it was for Fluke and a possible lawsuit, it was already said and it would have been useless. His advertisers was have been the same thing. not one decided to stay because he said he was sorry.... not one. he apologized for the reason he said he did.


137 posted on 03/05/2012 3:40:36 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
Please cite the case(s) on which you are relying for your conclusion that Fluke was a Limited Public Figure for purposes of application of the U.S. v. Sullivan 'actual malice' standard.

Or are you just reading the words I quoted from other cases and winging it?

138 posted on 03/05/2012 3:42:07 PM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week


Rush, quoted above.

Problem is, the Left is beyond “absurdity”, it’s into more or less bloodless (so far) coup territory. Into marxist revolution territory. It’s not fodder for humor and light banter. The left is actively and very aggressively destorying our country and taking away all of our freedoms. It’s not “absurd”, it’s tragic, it’s momentous, it’s dangerous and our lives are at stake.


139 posted on 03/05/2012 3:50:24 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell. Signed, a fanatic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster

You are wasting your breath hyperventilating over the “public figure” question.

As I pointed out, the viability of her claim is problematic because

1. It is quite unlikely that she would sue for being called a “slut” because that would open up the factual question as to whether and to what extent she is what might be considered promiscuous.

2. As to having falsely attributed to her the claim that she herself took birth control pills and paid for them, she doesn’t have a sound basis on which to argue reputational harm, which is a necessary element of a defamation claim in these circumstances.

Did you even read my post to you? I made these points to you before.


140 posted on 03/05/2012 3:53:45 PM PST by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-177 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