Posted on 03/16/2012 1:09:56 AM PDT by U-238
Gloria Allred, the leftist who uses a fig leaf of “feminist”—only, of course, when the women involved are leftists like herself—has requested that Michael McAuliffe determine whether Rush’s characterization of Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute” constitutes a violation of Section 836.04 of Florida Statutes which makes it criminal to “Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degrees.” One must, at some point, question whether leftists like Allred who have lived so long in the plastic bubble of chic leftism, without accountability to anyone or to anything, can grasp even the tiniest slivers of decency and integrity. No one ever holds them truly accountable for their dishonesty and their malice. But Allred, in her latest demand for a criminal investigation of Rush, reaches a new low, even for her.
Forget that this zealous quasi-advocate for [radical leftist] women has never demanded that David Letterman calling for the statutory rape of Sarah Palin’s daughter—and Letterman, unlike Rush, never apologized for his remarks - or Ed Shultz calling Laura Ingraham a “slut” also should be investigation by prosecutors. The savaging of brave conservative women, or just girls who happen to be children of those women, does not seem to trouble Allred at all.
Forget that the very statute Allred relies upon is blatantly sexist (it does not provide that a person who makes malicious statements about the chastity of a man.) That would mean if some white woman used the sick old ploy of accusing a black man, in a way that is highly destructive to his career, of having sexual relations with her that would not violate this “women only as allowed victims” law.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.If Rush intended to label Sandra Fluke as a real slut or prostitute, then he also intended to label the members of his audience as real pimps or johns.
What kind of idiot would think that he intended for either comment to be taken literally?
I’m sure she’ll be going after Ed Schultz next. Right?
Crickets........
Rush was spot on.
If Sandra Fluke goes before a Congressional Committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, then that makes her a slut, or a prostitute. Further, if she wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay, then that makes us the pimps, or the johns.
But, in reality, we would not actually be pimps or johns, and she wouldn't be a slut, just "round heeled," so "I take it back."
In the above scenario, there is no way a crime has been committed, nor was there slander, because one thing is made conditional upon another thing happening first.
Going back to Rush asking the questions in a rhetorical manner, it makes it a far cry from actually labeling her as a slut or a prostitute. And then, after reasoning that she is not a slut or prostitute, and the taxpayers are not the pimps or johns, he concluded only that she would be sexually active. At which point, he retracted that she would be a slut or prostitute.
"What kind of idiot would think that he intended for either comment to be taken literally?"
Gloria Allred?
Rush might have been “Spot On” in his charactarization of Sandra Fluke, but the winning argument was on the based in liberty in general and religious liberty in particular.
This feminized society is always primed for an explosion if any conservative male is “mean to the girl.” I’m reminded of the NY Senate debate when the commentators went bananas over the republican candidate approaching Hillary Clinton in a confrontational manner. If she had been male, or if the circumstances were reversed, those critics would have been impressed with the tactic.
We need to avoid being sucked into these mud wrestling contests because the political terrain is unfavorable. We have bigger battles to fight & win.
Slander is an intentional falsehood
Rush made his comments based on the facts as he knew it
and according to her own testimony, I believe he was right in degrading her reputation, she herself admits to having sex so often that she cannot afford birth control at age 30
that is a woman with no self control, and maybe even less self esteem that she thinks others need to pay her to have sex
How could it be false when she stood up and testified to her lack of chastity before Congress?
Gloria Allred is a crime.
"Did he touch you HERE?"
Gloria is calling for the arrest of almost every rapper.
Allred proceeds from the standard liberal assumption that free speech is only for liberals. Conservatives, however, can be offended by free speech coming from liberals, since conservatives are not covered by the principles of the first amendment. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Gloria Allred allegedly prides herself on being a feminist attorney, a modern day woman of the world, etc.
Yet, she wants to use an old, archaic law, a relic of a bygone age, to sue Rush for insulting the morals or character of a woman?
Wouldn’t Gloria Allred, if intellectually honest, object to this law still being on the books, in this day and age, and thus not sue based on such a law?
The last thing that 'true believers' in 'the Gospel of Marx' are, is intellectually honest...
the infowarrior
Fluke: "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary."
Hi Race. This is the closest in her statement that she came to discussing her own personal sex life. So we must take a close look at the two sentences.
1. "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."
In this sentence she only said that it can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. She didn't say that it cost her over $3,000.
2. "For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary."
In this sentence she refers back to the $3,000 amount and says that's practically an entire summer's salary for her. But again, she doesn't say that she has actually spent that amount. Race, I can't find anything in these two sentences wherein she says that she personally has sex so often that at age 30, she can't afford birth control.
I am sure that when Rush read this closely he could not come to any other conclusion either.
Because Rush was asking rhetorical questions, slander cannot be proved here. Allred knows that. All she has is some specious blabber about wanting someone to launch a criminal investigation. Well, if she feels that strongly about it, maybe she should go to Florida and attempt a citizens arrest on Rush. Boy howdy, she would then get the mother of all criminal investigations.
Yes, she's an idiot, and lots of libs are idiots. Years ago, I met the famed lawyer Melvin Belli in SF. He had a very smart way of dissing others. He would say "Someone else says (so and so) is a (bleep) and (bleep), but no, I would'nt say that, but others are saying (so and so) is a (bleep).".
Very effective way to put others down without being charged with slander. I used that effectively in work meetings to take enemies down a notch or two.
remember, though, she did not type it out, she spoke it
hearing this, the natural person would understand the inference to be related to herself as she makes the comments
It would be a natural assumption, therefore, to believe she referred to herself as spending over $3000 a year on contraception, otherwise, why compare her own salary to that amount of money?
If it did not refer to herself, she was making an unrelated statement that should make someone wonder who she was referring to if not herself, but only after it is explained it was not herself, for the natural understanding of her words leads us to believe it was herself she meant :)
She presented herself as an expert on the First Amendment and asked to testify. She did not qualify, so Pelosi set up her sham committee. Fluke was not drafted, she wanted to reach a wide audience, she has a history as an activist on the subject of contraception and abortion.
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.