Posted on 03/05/2012 10:29:09 AM PST by Kaslin
I disagree.
But that’s okay.
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.
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.
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?
She went public at the hearings.
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.
Agreed, very disappointing, and he is fuzzy-headed and evasive on radio today, too. Some higher-up bitch-slapped him, and he caved.
He didn't have to call her any names at all. He could have made his point very well without doing that.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're right. It's about shutting up the opposition.
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.
Yeah, salivating. That's why I've been on FR since 1998, just so I could troll on this thread.
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.
Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reproductive health care
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.