Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 169

Thread: Limbaugh refuses to back down on "****" remark

  1. #106
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    20,024

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by JKD View Post
    Fair enough, man. I was being a little more jokey than probably came across though.



    People can disagree that employers, governent, or whoever should have to provide birth control to women. I can understand the argument. I can see the other side of it too. It's a debate worth having. It's a shame that the talking heads like Limbaugh can't just discuss it like "I disagree with Ms. Fluke on this and here's why..."

    With a lot of the public discourse in this country, it's gotten to the point where if someone supports a policy you don't like or belongs to a different political party, it's not that you just happen to have different opinions, it's because they're an @sshole or a ****; they're a bad person.
    When a woman says that the taxpayers need to provide her free birth control because during law school, she is spending $three grand$ on ******s, then according to the Webster's definition ("a promiscuous woman") she is in fact a ****. Not a **********, but definitely a ****.

  2. #107
    Senior Member plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    When a woman says that the taxpayers need to provide her free birth control because during law school, she is spending $three grand$ on ******s, then according to the Webster's definition ("a promiscuous woman") she is in fact a ****. Not a **********, but definitely a ****.
    What about those who needs it for other health issues other than birth control? ****** is only ONE form of contraception. According to humanity she is your wife, sister, daughter, mother and grandmother.

  3. #108
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    20,024

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by plato View Post
    What about those who needs it for other health issues other than birth control? ****** is only ONE form of contraception. According to humanity she is your wife, sister, daughter, mother and grandmother.
    That is an entirely different issue. My and most any insurance plan would cover something prescribed out of medical necessity. The fact that it happens to be a birth control device is irrelevant. It would be covered. Free birth control at taxpayer's expense just so you can get your freak on is not that. I have to pay for my own damn ******s, and Ms. Fluke can damn well pay for her ******s herself as well.

  4. #109
    Senior Member plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    That is an entirely different issue. My and most any insurance plan would cover something prescribed out of medical necessity. The fact that it happens to be a birth control device is irrelevant. It would be covered. Free birth control at taxpayer's expense just so you can get your freak on is not that.
    However, the "****" was talking about "an entirely different issue". She was talking about women who needs these medicines that you don't need (if you are not a woman. I could be wrong).

  5. #110
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    20,024

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by plato View Post
    However, the "****" was talking about "an entirely different issue". She was talking about women who needs these medicines that you don't need (if you are not a woman. I could be wrong).
    She was talking about that, but she was FoS. Any health insurance policy will cover birth control if it is a medical necessity. Catholic hospitals and clinics will provide birth control devices if they are prescribed by doctors to treat conditions like uterine cancer or polyps, because they classify it as medicine, not birth control in those circumstances. So that whole point is just so much bullsh1t to emotionally manipulate the gullible.

    This is the exact comment made by the 'law student coed', Ms. Fluke, to which Rush Limbaugh was responding to.

    “Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke said, referring to the fact that the university doesn’t pay for contraception. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”
    She is pushing for 'free' ******s for all at taxpayer expense. **** that (no pun intended).

    And here is who Ms. Fluke really is, and what her true motives are.

    [CENTER]Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke


    Posted by Just a Grunt on Mar 02, 2012 at 10:49 am
    Jammie Wearing Fools blog[/CENTER]


    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.
    This whole thing was a political put-up job from the beginning, with the media and congressional Dems as willing accomplices. Just as George Stephanopolous brought up a bizarre fictional birth control scenario and hammered Repubs with it when he was moderator at one of the debates, the birth control thing keeps getting introduced over and over. It is part of the Dem's election strategy to try and demonize Repubs in the eyes of women voters. We will be seeing it again, and again, and again until November.

  6. #111
    Senior Member plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    She was talking about that, but she was FoS. Any health insurance policy will cover birth control if it is a medical necessity. Catholic hospitals and clinics will provide birth control devices if they are prescribed by doctors to treat conditions like uterine cancer or polyps, because they classify it as medicine, not birth control in those circumstances. So that whole point is just so much bullsh1t to emotionally manipulate the gullible.

    This is the exact comment made by the 'law student coed', Ms. Fluke, to which Rush Limbaugh was responding to.She is pushing for 'free' ******s for all at taxpayer expense. **** that (no pun intended).

    And here is who Ms. Fluke really is, and what her true motives are.
    Then go argue with her on those points! There is [SIZE=7]NO NEED[/SIZE] to call her a "****"! Get it? In America, [*******#333333][FONT=arial]manners has even become polarized! [/FONT][/COLOR]

  7. #112
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    20,024

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by plato View Post
    Then go argue with her on those points! There is [SIZE=7]NO NEED[/SIZE] to call her a "****"! Get it? In America, [*******#333333][FONT=arial]manners has even become polarized! [/FONT][/COLOR]
    That is a really, really dumb comment. Rush is a 'shock jock', just like Keith Obermann, Rachel Maddow, Michael Savage, Howard Stearn, Don Imus and the rest. Why does it surprise you that he would make such a statement? That is like saying 'there is no need need for the great white shark to bite that poor seal!' This is precisely what 'shock jocks' do. It is their job. Do you seriously not understand that?

  8. #113
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,084

    Default

    *****ing john Boehner condemned the comment yesterday. The same John Boenher inadvertently caught commenting on the chest of a female reporter at a press conference in the late '90s (check it out it really happened). I don't think there is any real debate that the comment was wrong when even Boehner weighs in.

    Don't confuse the fact that Rush is a shock jock and we shouldn't be surprised that he said with the fact it was wrong. Of course I'm not surprised Limbaugh made a horribly sexist comment. That's what he does. But just because its a habit of his doesn't make it right. just like when Imus made his comment. Was it surprising? No. Was it wrong? Yes. I simply find it hard to believe I have to explain this.

    Some of the shyt I read in this thread blows my *****ing mind. Do y'all not have wives, girlfriends, or daughters? This comment should be condemned universally with no qualifiers. It is wrong. It will always be wrong. And except for the fact that Rush basically owns the whole system that broadcasts his voice he would be fired for having done it. Its not like its unprecedented, either. MNF shytcanned him. EIB didn't and won't. But that don't make it right.

    hank

  9. #114
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kimujnr View Post
    No Hollis, that right there is a bunch of imaginary pooch ****. Its almost as though you're implying that his fat checks are the result of his very liberal audience who listen out of sheer contempt. That'd be like me saying that only people I know who quote Stewart and Maher are good ol' boy conservatives. Personally I've met far too many "conservatives" who love Rush to death.
    Win. His target demographic is overwhelmingly white middle-aged and older males. Its not like this is hard to google. That information is readily available.

    hank

  10. #115
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gaijinsamurai View Post
    1. I have no problem with women having access to contraceptives. Wanting to practice birth control does not make a woman a ****.

    2. I do have a problem with people expecting taxpayers to pay for these types of things. I also have a problem with forcing private institutions to do things that run counter to their ethical/religious beliefs.
    Hai guise. This is how you do it right. UNLESS your real goal is to sell golf balls to middle-aged fat white guys (and just so some don't miss the point I'm contending that is Rush's ultimate goal in all situations).

    hank

  11. #116
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fargin View Post
    Cool. We're all discussing this issue from Rush Limbaugh's POV, talk about enlightenment.

    Kudos to LD and JKD for trying to elevate this discussion about contraception from the gutter.
    Maybe I'm old-fashioned, it does not matter what she was talking about. Nothing she says in front of Congress justifies calling her a ****. But I think I must have been raised by wolves or something. Or dropped on my head. Or maybe have some other delusional disorder.

    hank

  12. #117
    Senior Member hank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Enjoying a maple-flavored breakfast sandwich
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LineDoggie View Post
    I'd like to see how she justified the 40% of female students she claimed struggled financially because of a lack of free birth control. I would hope she had to back such statements up with some kind of facts.[FONT=verdana]
    [/FONT]
    She won't be able to back that up. That's a crazy number. But it still doesn't justify calling her a **** (and I'm not saying you are justifying him calling her a ****).

    hank

  13. #118
    Senior Member LineDoggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    38S MB 3661/8351
    Posts
    31,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hank View Post
    She won't be able to back that up. That's a crazy number. But it still doesn't justify calling her a **** (and I'm not saying you are justifying him calling her a ****).

    hank
    I've never said anyone was justified in calling her a ****, ********** or Whore, My Father would have smacked me immediately for using that language towards women. Limpbaugh has always annoyed me as a Pompous windbag, But do we have any choice in what he says? Freedom of speech also means putting up with *******s we dont agree with as long as they arent calling for violence to others. And Limpbaugh qualifies as an *******.

  14. #119
    Waywickedcool Federal Ninja Laconian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Villa Gorilla
    Age
    51
    Posts
    14,158

    Default

    I'm going to admit to having heard Rush. I wouldn't say I listen to Rush, he's just on the radio in the background. I heard his comment when he said it and I thought, "You got to be *****ting, me." It was both classless and uncalled for.

    Debate someone on their facts, expose their bias, show that their argument is faulty. Don't call them names, especially don't call a female "****."

  15. #120
    Senior Member kimujnr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    home of pitbull maulings and bbq sauce
    Posts
    2,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollis View Post
    That is my experience, it is not a scientific study. I know a number of pretty conservative people who do not listen to Rush and think very poorly of him. Only time I hear of Rush is from the liberals that I know or on this forum who are bashing him. Now if you are saying I am lying, just come out and say it. Nice insult BTW.
    Please don't misconstrue my challenging your original comment as an insult, i'm certainly not bold enough to tempt fate with a Mod no matter the circumstances. Also, I can't say or believe that you're lying since you've made it clear that neither you nor conservatives you know listen to him, thst fine. But, just because you've never met a conservative who listens or likes Limbaugh that doesn't mean that a large segment of his listeners aren't in that political demographic. Once again Hollis, not insulting or calling you a liar I've just heard that argument too many times and it lacks weight in my book.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •