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.
droll...
I forgot about Levin such that Rush was such an overpowering figure.
Thanks.
“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?
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.
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.
“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.
>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?
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.
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.
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. :(
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?
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.
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?
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.
“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!
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.
“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?
After finding out what her agenda is, we could safely qualify her as political “whore” for the left.
Maybe she has a pleasant personality, but I would not like to be locked in a room with her.
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.
Cantor took the liberal bait and gave Rush an especially hard slap-down, loser. Newt's was more measured.
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.