In the wake of Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” there has been no end to furor. The Washington Post, in full piety mode:
IN A DEMOCRACY, standards of civil discourse are as important as they are indefinable. Yet wherever one draws the line, Rush Limbaugh’s vile rants against Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke crossed it. Mr. Limbaugh is angry at President Obama’s efforts to require the provision of contraception under employer-paid health insurance and the White House’s attempts to make some political hay out of the policy. His way of showing this anger was to smear Ms. Fluke, who approached Congress to support the plan, as a “slut” seeking a government subsidy for her promiscuity.
So what do they recommend?
What we are saying is that Mr. Limbaugh has abused his unique position within the conservative media to smear and vilify a citizen engaged in the exercise of her First Amendment rights, and in the process he debased a national political discourse that needs no further debasing. This is not the way a decent citizen behaves, much less a citizen who wields significant de facto power in a major political party. While Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, they do have a responsibility to repudiate them — and him.
WaPo wants the Republican Party to repudiate Limbaugh.
In an astonishingly honest article, Kirsten Powers elucidates a litany of abuse on the part of the left wing media:
During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.
Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.
Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.
Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews “is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?
But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don’t show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”
Please read the entire thing.
Don Surber adds more:
What about President Obama? He has never repudiated Bill Maher for myriad of similar offenses including calling Sarah Palin the C-word and the T-word. Instead of demanding that Bill Maher apologize, Barack Obama accepted a million bucks from him. Just what will Bill Maher get in the second term from President Obama for that million?
In fact, liberals rallied around the free-speech rights of Bill Maher when he praised the 9-11 hijackers as heroes and added, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away… Staying in the airplane when it hits the building — say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”
So there it is, clear as day. The new decency standards.
If you’re a conservative commentator, call a woman a “slut”, you need to apologize and Republicans are supposed to repudiate you.
If you’re a liberal commentator and you call a woman a “c*nt”, a “dumb twat” and proclaim that the 9-11 hijackers are heroes, not only do you not have to apologize, Barack Obama will take a million dollars from you.
And Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will appear on your show!
If the President of the United States can embrace misogyny, then so should we all.
Exit question- If Obama called Sandra Fluke after Limbaugh’s comments, why didn’t he call Palin after Maher’s comments?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
“If you’re a conservative commentator, call a woman a “slut”, you need to apologize and Republicans are supposed to repudiate you. ”
Correct. This is particularly the case when you have no basis for making any judgement whatsoever about the woman in question, and you’re just a moron that cannot understand the news you are presented with. Like if, say, an advocate for women’s access to birth control goes before a panel and advocates for women’s access to birth control. If you’re so idiotic you interpret this as her own need for heaps of contraceptives and call her a slut for that, you’re a moron who needs to apologize for that retarded reaction.
Sometime, somewhere, someone needed to press the case for Saudi Arabia getting their latest multi-billion dollar arms deal. Let’s say his name was Geoff. If your reaction to that was “I don’t trust this Geoff guy with billions of dollars worth of hardware” you are a moron who needs to apologize if you in any way let someone other than yourself witness that reaction.
If you were smarter, you would realize that’s for your benefit, rather than Geoff’s.
@Crimson:
I do not defend Limbaugh’s words, but the woman misrepresented herself and outright lied about costs and access.
It is the duplicity – the double standard- that is most egregious.
“I do not defend Limbaugh’s words, but the woman misrepresented herself and outright lied about costs and access.”
What’s your understanding of the definition of the word “slut”?
And a followup, do you believe I’m a woman and continuing to argue this is in any way defensible or able to be justified will convert me, the 1 woman, while the other 51% of the population watch?
Mitt Romney probably has an explanation for how the trees in Michigan are just the right height. Wanna see him go on TV and explain it? How about argue it with passion over a series of weeks?
Just STFU. Everyone. Seriously. If this was dreamed up by the Obama 2012 campaign to help the GOP drive away half the electorate, and the GOP was on board with that, how would this look any different ?
@Crimson:
Which part of “I do not defend Limbaugh’s words” did not you grasp?
I am not about to let you commandeer this thread and turn into something it’s not. Who do you think I am, Matt Lauer?
And honestly, it is you who should STFU. You weren’t bothered by any of the left wing vulgarity above, then IMO you’re not enititled to be bothered by this either.
The Harpies on The View accept the s-word as a badge of honor. So slot it is for that choir.
Hypocrisy
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/06/video-compilation-of-misogynist-liberals/
@drjohn: She didn’t necessarily lie about cost and access. Many women—perhaps as high as 40%, which was part of her testimony (and may include those taking contraceptives for medical purpose other than precluding pregnancy)—have a bad reaction to generic oral birth control pills contraceptive—possibly because generics aren’t the same as brand names:
“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has looked at the issue of brand-name versus generic oral contraception. It noted that doctors and patients “have questioned whether [these] products are clinically equivalent and interchangeable, as effective in preventing pregnancy, and have similar occurrences of side effects,” in a committee statement published in August 2007. ”
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2009/07/generic-vs-brand-name-birth-control.html
Rush’s logic: A man and a woman want to have sex without making babies. They want to use tax-payer-funded contraception to do so. The woman is therefore a slut and a prostitute.
Rush’s apology: “I apologize for using the words “slut” and “prostitute”. ”
Okay, bad word choice… but, is there anything else we can spot that he might need to own up to? Any other minor holes, so to speak, overlooked in his nauseatingly-privileged musings on the situation?
This quote is from 2007:
This same mom added that department stores were no better by 2007:
Both quotes from Slate.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/fashion/2007/08/lolitas_closet.single.html
This month, Slate allowed that women have ”reclaimed” the term, Slut.
So, bottom line: the LEFT OWNS the term, SLUT.
It is their newest N-word.
Only THEY can say it without repercussions.
@Kevin:
And not one word about the vulgarity of the left.
Which is but further validation of the post.
When Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut, Barbara Walters laughed it off
@Liberal1 (objectivity): You raised the specter, but are well short of something called proof.
Then again, what would you expect would be provided for free by insurance companies?
Hello, that would be GEQ.
@Crimson:
Before you demand anyone on the right apologises, clean your own house first you hypocrite.
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/06/video-compilation-of-misogynist-liberals/
I noticed not one leftist has said boo about the above link.
Regarding Bill Maher,
There have been some latenite Palin/Bachmann jokes of his that I didn’t include in my Sunday Funnies weekly roundup because they were so beyond vulgar and offensive…I really should have saved them though, for an occasion like this.
They have to be read to be truly believed.
Maher responds to Rush on the double-standard
@wordsmith: From your Newsbusters link:
Interestingly I heard on a morning financial show that there are dozens of sponsors just waiting for an opening on Rush’s show.
Apparently some sponsors stay put there for YEARS!
Who knew?
The 10 or so he ”lost” have all been replaced by new sponsors who are really happy for their chance.
Kind of makes Andrew Breitbart’s last video (of the SEIU/Occupiers and other’s rants about how their version of democracy is incompatible with capitalism) all the more relevant.
http://content.bitsontherun.com/previews/IwlGdBZ5-svqBtzyp
@wordsmith:
Word, if you could post the links or send them to me I’d appreciate it. There are a few places I want to stick them.
Thanks
Misogyny literally means hatred of women.
Free birth control pills for recreational sex equals extreme hatred of women.
Think about that.
Birth control pills means no need for condoms.
No condoms means the partners are at risk to spread any of 20 plus STDs.
A couple of these STDs are incurable, one, at least, can be fatal.
Also, condoms have no bad side effects for the users.
Birth control pills, otoh, have quite a few potentially very bad side effects.
Deep-vein thrombosis
Stroke
Heart attack
Breast cancer
Who cares for women?
People who encourage personal responsibility.
Who hates women?
Obama and Fluke and those who throw pills at them for votes.
“Which part of “I do not defend Limbaugh’s words” did not you grasp?”
The part where you said this as a premise to continue to have objections to the subject of them. You know, in the comments section of the post where you’re still writing about the issue as though it’s still a topic for debate.
“I am not about to let you commandeer this thread and turn into something it’s not. Who do you think I am, Matt Lauer?”
You posted this article for what reason then? If I write a blog post about the Duke Lacross allegations, I think it’s a pretty safe statement that I haven’t let that issue go yet, like I should have.
“And honestly, it is you who should STFU. You weren’t bothered by any of the left wing vulgarity above, then IMO you’re not enititled to be bothered by this either.”
No, it’s clearly still you. Do you think if I’m the world’s biggest Bill Maher fan and like defending him in public that continually talking about how he called a woman a cnut is a smart thing or a dumb thing for me?
Gaddamn you’re thick. Is this some kind of blog outreach program to the logic-challenged where they’re letting you post here?
“Before you demand anyone on the right apologises, clean your own house first you hypocrite.”
I didn’t demand anyone apologize kid. I said this is the apropriate response when you do something this stupid and that you do it for your own benefit. Like Rush did. Seriously, try paying attention.
As yet unanswered…..
“Just STFU. Everyone. Seriously. If this was dreamed up by the Obama 2012 campaign to help the GOP drive away half the electorate, and the GOP was on board with that, how would this look any different ? ”
Really. How would this be modified?
Remember, this contraception argument you’re all having isn’t an attack on liberals or Obama or healthcare, it’s an attack on women. You’re doing it for the detriment to them, for nobody’s benefit.
This is a society in which prior to any Obamacare rulings, most Catholic universities included abortions in their healthcare coverage, because most insurance plans affordably available to them included this by default. That’s who you could possibly win over here….. the ultra religious who were already providing this because it was cost effective, who somehow weren’t already going to vote Republican.
Why don’t you pick a fight with the other half of the population to win over chubby guys with the surname “Rove”. The demographics are pretty much the same.
And does anyone remember Dave Letterman demeaning Palin’s daughter? He should have been fired on the spot, but I would not expect the liberal CBS to do the right thing.
We are in strange times, when right is called wrong and wrong is called right. Seems to me there is something in Revelation about that!
Liberal1 (objectivity)@#7 Clearly you know this is not the issue… Health Insurance covers this type of b/c as a medical necessity for ‘some’ women and the percentage of women who need to use b/c for medical reasons is relatively low….
This is about the Government…wanting more control….
This Crimson person here sounds so immensely angry…. hateful perhaps….and such bitter language too.. OMG…
@Crimson:
Not that I don’t believe you or anything, but…..link please.
Aqua, whether Crimson will back up his finger-in-the-air factoid about how “most Catholic universities included abortions in their healthcare coverage, because most insurance plans affordably available to them included this by default”, who knows. I can’t say how many offered that coverage, or not, because I know of no statistics that actually state that in a definitive form.
But what I can point to is that the Catholic institution, Belmont Abbey College in north Carolina, was fighting this back in Feb 2008. The story?
What happened? Interesting story. According to their attorneys’ website, BecketFund, in March of 2009, the EEOC determined that there was no gender discrimination. But of course, there was a new administration in town, and it only took a couple of weeks for them to change their mind on their decision.
Needless to say, the O’healthcare Pelosi/Reid/Obama unconstitutional mandate that all insurance companies must include birth control etal in their policy coverage is a resurgence of a battle that Belmont already had been fighting for over four years. So they filed another lawsuit against the Obama admin this past November.
Are they alone? Hell no… There have been others that have challenged their state mandates, including Washington State pharmacists who have been fighting a state law there that doesn’t allow them to opt out of dispensing birth control/morning after pills against their conscience. That’s been going on since 2007.
All of these are just examples of religious institutions, businesses and individuals who have been already fighting this at the state level, where it Constitutionally belongs. The feds? Way outside of their authorities with a national federal mandate.
But then, the lawsuits are piling up for Obama now as well, since seven states are suing over this mandate. I might also add they are seven states that have NO laws for minimum coverage INRE birth control/abortion for insurers operating in their states.
On the flip side, Kansas is one of eight states that has a limited abortion coverage law, and is embroiled in lawsuits with the ACLU. It’s the opposite side of the coin, saying that insurance can only coverage abortions when the mother’s life is in danger, and if a woman wants that coverage for any other reasons, she is required to purchase a rider for the extra perk coverage. Needless to say, that extra charge is pissing a few off…
So far the judge’s rulings have come down in favor of the state, because it’s not like the woman does not have access to abortions by choice. She just needs to pay extra for it.
Considering the resistance in the states’ backyards that has been going on, I’d say that Crimson is drawing from his knowledge about religious institutions’ health care from the same liberal encyclopedia where he/she gets it’s knowledge about what affects oil prices.
Obama doesn’t hate women or minorities.
He wants more minorities in as officers in the military, for instance.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, this will mean LOWERING the STANDARDS.
“80 percent of minority teens who might consider military service are ineligible because of bad grades, criminal records, obesity and drug use…
[W]hile African Americans and Hispanics comprise 27 percent of the population, they fill only 13 percent of the active duty officer corps. ”
Obama has lowered the standards to get minorities and women in as fire and police so, why not in the military?
@Crimson:
What a pathetic attempt at dodging what you said.
Gee, another liberal comes here and finds out he’s nowhere near as smart as he thought.
Big surprise.
@Crimson:
That’s how you’re casting it. That’s precisely what’s wrong. It’s not about abortion.
But you know that and you waste our time intentionally.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
I am HIGHLY amused that anyone should give a “thumbs down” to your simple statement of facts about generic drugs.
Is there any doubt those “thumbs down” on a simple fact come from Rush supporters?
I guess reality really does have a liberal bias.
@Crimson:
This is painful to read.
Anyway, the post is not about Limbaugh’s words. It’s about double standards and hypocrisy.
But like I said, you know that and are just being a thorn.
It really only takes a lowly comedian to blow apart the hypocrisies of the right:
http://bostinno.com/2012/03/06/the-daily-shows-jon-stewart-absolutely-slams-rush-limbaugh-for-comments-about-sandra-flukes-support-of-contraception-videos/
@MataHarley:
so first you admit that you don’t have any information to contradict Crimson, then you cite one case, and from that you conclude that “Crimson is drawing from his knowledge about religious institutions’ health care from the same liberal encyclopedia…. blah blah blah”
This is a good example of why the vast majority of scientists are liberal. Evidence, rather than bile, is how truth is fond, and today’s conservatives have given up on evidence.
rewinn, Crimson made that statement. The onus is on him to prove his rhetoric. Otherwise it’s empty lip service.
Unlike Crimson, spouting off at the mouth without an iota of proof, I provided data, documented in the courts, as contrary.
But thanks for your example of “blah blah blah”
@MataHarley:
Not “data” (plural) but “datum” (singular): ONE case
Out of a universe of how many institutions? You don’t know, but if I stated there are at the least many hundreds, would you then attack me for not providing a citation?
Let’s be honest: you disagree with Crimson, but your attack is that he didn’t provide all the data you want. That’s no reason to conclude that he’s incorrect; at most, you can say he failed to prove his case.
This is a distinction that counts to people seeking after truth but, as I stated, most scientists are liberal for good reason.
@rewinn:
Two point, rewinn.
-One, if you are contending that the scientific community portion relating to liberal or conservative only has a “vast majority” of scientists identifying as liberal, then you would be correct. However, according to a PEW poll done in 2009, 52% identify as liberal. That 52% number is hardly a “vast majority” of all scientists, which your comment reflects. As an aside, 35% identify as “moderate” and 9% as “conservative”. On top of that, out of those 52%, 14% identify as “very liberal”.
http://people-press.org/http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf
-Two, I find your statement one that belies a feeling of superiority, as if no one else in the world but scientists are concerned with seeking the truth, and that because you seem to believe that only scientists seek the truth, that anything someone else states, particularly from conservatives, is trash, or, to use your word, bile. I’m not sure if elitism is how you meant to come across to people here, but if it is, you certainly started strong out of the gate.
@johngalt: First, I accept the numbers you provide in the spirit they were given. I should have said something like scientists tend liberal more than 5-to-1 (52% to 9%) or something like that. Thanks for the correction; accuracy and precision are important.
As to your second point, it seems to me that you are protesting exactly the wrong issue. As Lincoln said (paraphrasing) the issue should not be whether God is on OUR side, but rather, whether we are on GOD’s side. And the same can be said of truth. The scientific method is the most reliable method for generating truth ever discovered; while there are many things other than truth that are valuable (e.g. music, beauty, fun) when it comes down to figuring out what is true, it’s science or nothing.
Why would that seem “elitist” or a feeling of “superiority” to you? You don’t need to be an “elite” to care about truth, any more than you need to be a race car driver to care about driving safely. Normal, healthy people care about truth for the same reason we care about driving safely, and they achieve both the same way: using objective means to figure stuff out, not the sort of “bile” or what you call “trash” that consists of personal attacks on Crimson or Sandra Fluke for sticking up for women’s health.
BTW you might want to look up the word “belie” in the dictionary; it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. “[B]elies a feeling of superiority…” means “disguises a feeling of superiority” (as if I was acting all humble when I’m really not) whereas the rest of your post seems to mean that what I wrote demonstrates or flaunts a feeling of superiority in an annoying and obvious way. If pointing this out to you makes me an elitist, I’ll bear that cross with joy.
Meanwhile, aren’t you bothered by the real elitists – the 1% who are shipping your jobs overseas? What about the elitists who demand that women who want access to prescription birth control bills to treat ovarian cysts should post sex tapes on the web. Is that really a political faction you want to stick with? Will you look back with pride … will you show your daughters with pride … that you back Rush’s attack on women who are being responsible about their health as sluts and prostitutes who should post sex tapes online?
American women are the majority. They won’t be treated like dirt.
I don’t condone mean-spirited, vile attacks on anyone, but I think that there is a difference between a professional politician and a private citizen witness in a congressional hearing. Lots of people on this blog use lots of mean-spirited and sometimes vile language to attack professional politicians. Same thing on Left-leaning blogs. It’s one of the accepted occupational hazards of politicians to have to put up with nasty political cartoons and name calling.
The type of language used by Limbaugh in attacking a private citizen witness crossed a line, in the minds of most people. I personally think that Mr. Limbaugh is a lecherous old man, dependent on Viagra and porn. He made it quite clear that he is no stranger to the latter and the former is a matter of public record.
Limbaugh was a gift to the Democrats, early in the 2012 political season. Rightly or wrongly, he’s become strongly identified as a leading voice of Conservative America, and most traditional Republican conservatives were appalled, along with the rest of the nation. I agree with those who said it was sad that none of the GOP Presidential candidates had the guts to tell Limbaugh that he basically jumped the shark, with this one.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Yours is a pretty thoughtful comment, and better than anything I wrote above. I really can’t tell from your comment what your politics may be, which suggests it is correct on all the important points.
Looking at Rush’s action in strictly in political terms, as the saying goes, “It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.” Republicans and conservatives unwilling to do the right thing for the right reason should at least have the wisdom to do the right thing for political survival, but the evidence suggests that they are relying instead on their traditional wedge issues and Citizens United. We shall see if that’s enough.
@drjohn:
That’s the thing. I don’t have any direct link. You’d have to click the “source” link to the latenight jokes and then just sift through one day at a time, looking for Bill Maher quotes. That’s where I saw them. I’m thinking somewhere around the last few months of 2011; but I don’t know for sure.
From what I remember, they were sexually perverse, derogatory, and just plain offensive.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Okay, if this is the case then should the same apply to President Obama when Maher says something derogatory and sexually offensive about conservative women? After all, he contributed a million dollars to Obama’s re-election efforts. Should he denounce and disavow himself of every insignificant comment made by liberal-supporting, prominent pundits when the political opponents with a willing media decide to make a story out of a non-story? That could take all day….
I can’t remember the circumstances now, but I remember President Obama in an interview asking the interviewer why should he apologize for something someone else said. Does anyone remember to what I am referring to?
I listened to someone on the Sunday talk shows say Romney needs to repudiate Rush:
Has Rush even endorsed Romney? Doesn’t Rush regard Romney as “not a true conservative”?
And as Caleb Howe writes:
Why are liberals in such an uproar over this, making a non-story into “THE” story? Political opportunism to deflect and distract from the issue of the economy.
Carbonite stock drops after they pull ads from Limbaugh.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/06/investors-flee-carbonite-after-limbaugh-announcement/
I wonder how the other companies who withdrew their ads are doing.
I didn’t care for the way Rush put Sandra Fluke down. Just commenting on her wanting me to pay for her and other’s contraceptives would have been enough.
Do you notice that the propaganda media still call the USA a democracy?
@wordsmith:
Hold on a second Word. In Larry’s defense he did say:
Since Larry is a reasonable person, I going to take that to mean a private citizen period. And that being the case, we all know how well the left treated Joe the Plumber after his very cordial conversation with Teh Won. Wait, no that won’t work. They tried to destroy poor Joe.
Guess you’re right. Not to worry though, Larry and the others will just move the goalpost some more.
I find all this concern about Limbaughs comments eratz. Too point: obammas continued use of the middle finger, obammas use of the term teabagger when referring to the Tea Party Patriots, his arguing with private citizens as in Joe the Plumber. If you need a link for these examples you are an osterich. These are examples of obamma acting like a 12 year old kid, or a street thug, take your pick. These are not examples of a supporter commenting without your knowledge or approval. The Republican candidates have no obligation, moral or legal to denounce Limbaugh. Finally $1000 a year would buy 2000 condums or enough condums for 5.5 triestes a day. I will not call her a slut, but you do the numbers.
@Aqua:
projectsycamore.com/media/images/bulletins/111020/OSVins.pdf
I have no knowledge or opinion about any of these nouns. They could be the supreme council, or a treehouse club. I neither know nor care. I reference this as the only thing I’ve found that’s able to be referenced on the topic so far.
@MataHarley:
Me either. I just took them at their word. More to the point though, it’s the only available source anyone can find on the topic
BTW, google still exists.
Catholic universities abortions healthcare = my source as result #2, that being reported on as result #1.
@DrJohn:
Cool. Keep up the good work.
Maybe Obama will lose 30 sponsors for his show if you keep talking about it.
Seems like a winner.
@Crimson:
Right. It’s best for the right to tuck its tail between its collective legs and take the beating. Let the left turn this into a “the right wants to take away your contraception” thing.
Not this guy. Love to see Limbaugh back on the offensive, chewing up Charlie Rose and the rest of the duplicitous morons. It’s time to take the fight to them. There is no better time to show some gumption.
@drjohn:
“It’s best for the right to tuck its tail between its collective legs and take the beating.”
That is what elitest bigots like crimson and rewinn want us to do.
Too bad we won’t be obliging them.
@rewinn:
My second point had to do with what seemed to be the conclusion you drew from statistics showing scientists overall leaned liberal. That is, since scientists overall lean liberal, and since the scientific method is one that seeks truth, therefore conservatives do NOT seek truth. Is that correct? If it is, then I find your conclusion to be an ‘elitist’ point of view concerning conservatives and truth. Does that clear that point up for you?
JG, rewinn is just another faaaar left moonbat. That is why it makes the delusional comment about science and liberalism.
The funny thing is I had posted something about that leftist viewpoint on another thread here- the Archbishops issue.
I stated that if you disagreed with leftists you were ignorant and bigoted. If you agreed with them you were intelligent and superior. Rewinn just proved my point. You may check it’s “blog” for further validation of what I say about him.
@wordsmith:
Maher: used a nasty word about a public figure.
Limbaugh: went on for hours about a private citizen, demanding (among other things) to see sex tapes of her.
I appreciate that if you don’t see a difference, then you don’t see a difference. Your POV is your POV and I can’t say you don’t have it.
But most women, and most parents of women, see a difference. They may be wrong; maybe you are right, and Maher’s attack on a public figure is the same as Limbaugh disgusting attack on a private citizen. Even so, I encourage you and your political faction to keep it up. It’s a competitive world out there, and when your political foes are cutting their own throats, the smart thing to do is to let them.