Outraged Networks Target Rush Limbaugh's 'Very Ugly' 'Evisceration' of Activist
The three network morning shows on Friday continued a left-wing attack on Rush Limbaugh, railing at the "ugly turn" the conservative radio host took when he "eviscerated" an activist college student who testified before Congress on birth control availability.
On NBC's Today, Matt Lauer lectured, "And an ugly turn in the battle over birth control. Rush Limbaugh has ruffled feathers with his choice words for a 23-year-old woman who supports insurance coverage for contraception." Reporter Kelly O'Donnell huffed, "Limbaugh, who called [Sandra] Fluke by the wrong first name, then called her some very ugly things." [See MP3 audio here. Video below.]
Describing Limbaugh's commentaries on Wednesday and Thursday, O'Donnell fretted, "Limbaugh amped up the shock factor." On the previous evening's Nightly News, Anne Thompson adopted liberal talking points, noting that "some" see this as a "war on women."
On Friday's Good Morning America, the segment's graphic used a similar line, describing the issue this way: "Limbaugh Firestorm: Flashpoint Over Women's Rights."
Reporter Jake Tapper recounted, "For two days, Rush Limbaugh has eviscerated Sandra Fluke on the radio."
Framing the debate in a more fair way than NBC, he at least wondered, "Is it a debate about religious liberty? Or is it a debate about a talk radio giant insulting a third year law student?"
Host Robin Roberts could barely contain her contempt. After George Stephanopoulos asserted that Limbaugh "seemed" to call student Fluke a prostitute, Roberts jumped in, "Seemed to? He did!"
CBS This Morning offered the least amount of coverage. In an interview with Carly Fiorini, Erica Hill noted that Limbaugh was being controversial, but "he makes comments which are controversial a lot."
She then asked the Republican, "How does that language affect what Republicans are trying to do and the votes that they are trying to win?"
For a recount of Thursday night's Nightly News coverage, go here. For more on Today's coverage, go here.
A partial transcript of the March 2 Today segment, which aired at 7:10am EST, follows:
MATT LAUER: And an ugly turn in the battle over birth control. Rush Limbaugh has ruffled feathers with his choice words for a 23-year-old woman who supports insurance coverage for contraception, even at religious institutions. This morning she will join us and respond in an exclusive live interview.
7:10AM SEGMENT
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: To politics now. Democrats have narrowly blocked an effort by Senate Republicans to overturn President Obama's policy on contraception insurance coverage. It is a heated issue and it's led to controversial comments by conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell is on Capitol Hill for us this morning. Kelly, good morning to you.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Contraception Controversy; Limbaugh's Choice Words For Birth Control Activist]
KELLY O'DONNELL: Good morning, Savannah. So this all starts with the President's health care law. And then it gets into the fierce debate over some personal issues, like women's health and birth control and religious freedom. Now that can be volatile enough, but then you add Rush Limbaugh and his harsh words toward a 30-year-old woman.
SANDRA FLUKE: I don't believe I am a pawn.
O'DONNELL: Sandra Fluke is a Georgetown University law student and activist for women's reproductive health.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you femi-Nazis, here's the deal...
O'DONNELL: Rush Limbaugh, the conservative provocateur with 20 million listeners, made Fluke his target after she spoke out on Capitol Hill in favor of a new Obama administration rule that would require health insurance provide free birth control as preventive medical care.
SANDRA FLUKE: Contraception, as you know, 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.
O'DONNELL: Limbaugh, who called Fluke by the wrong first name, then called her some very ugly things.
LIMBAUGH: What does it say about the college coed Susan 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.
O'DONNELL: Limbaugh amped up the shock factor.
LIMBAUGH: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.
O'DONNELL: Furious Democrats quickly defended Fluke and fired off a demand that Republican leaders denounce Limbaugh.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
No, no, Rushie!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:26pm.
Now that I have seen a picture of Ms. Fluck, I don't want to have to look at the video's of this little ho doing ANYTHING!
She's beginning to remind me of the joke when a guy asks a girl in a bar if she would have sex with him for $1 million. She replies, "Certainly!" He then asks if she would do it for $5. She says, "What do you think I am?" he says, "We already established that. Now we're just negotiating price."
Ms. Fluck has established beyond a shadow of a doubt what she is. I guess now the Congress has to decide how much We the People have to pay the little ho to have sex; apparently a LOT of sex!
Maybe they can recoup some of the cost by showing the videos to first graders sex ed classes?
The White House is now involved.......
Submitted by Herbster on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 4:27pm.
I understand that the current occupant of the White House called this useful idiot to ask if she "Was O.K." The occupant further stated that "Her parents should be very proud." I believe the FULL sentence should read, "Your parents should be very proud.....while you're out there getting plowed."
This is what our country has come to. Sickening.
As I said on another thread
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 4:58pm.
Do you think this (insert curse word meaninging born out of wedlock) called the families of any of the soldiers killed in Afganistan over the past weeks? No, he called the Afgan government to apologize and this proponent of irresponsible sex, but not the families of our soldiers.
Rad, he's much more than a bastard.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 5:30pm.
He's a RBFSOB. Besides, "bastard" isn't a "bad word." it's a very descriptive word, and valid to use if it accurately describes the object, which it does in Bambi's case.
No. No phone calls for heroes.
Submitted by Herbster on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 7:30pm.
He and the angry wife hate the military. He wouldn't have the nerve to call anyone associated with the military after he's cutting their medical benefits (And using the $$ to pay off his friends) and redefining who gets combat pay. Used to be, if you were in a combat zone, you got combat pay. Now, you have to be actually fired upon to qualify for these extra few dollars. Shameful.
Shameful also was lowering the flag to half staff in New Jersey to "Honor" the passing of a drug addict with a thirty year habit. The Sunday of the week this "Hero" expired, there was a picture on the front page of our paper here in Texas of a young soldier who had lost the lower half of his body to an IED. He is married, but will never have children. His legs are completely gone. He is going through therapy and has a wonderful outlook on his life and a supportive wife. HERE is a hero. HERE is someone who should get a call from the White House - not some spoiled useful idiot who "Can't afford her birth control." Here's a tip" Wal-Mart. $5.oo. Does she want us taxpayers to pay for her future STD's? I'm sure she'll have a few abortions also. She must make her parents very proud. They can tell their friends and neighbors how their wonderful daughter just can't get enough sex because of the cost of birth control.
Another phony issue to mask what is really happening in our country. And the story is of course repeated over and over by the state run media. Beware the Government/Media complex.
Without the Second Amendment there will be no First Amendment
On my bookcase, there is a small framed statement made by Gen. Heinz Guderian. "The future will surely triumph over the perpetual yesterday." Let's hope he is right.
True.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 11:29am.
Haven't heard of him getting on the phone to check on how the tornado survivors in KY, IN, and TN, etc, are doing either.
Guess having your house and family blown away by a storm ain't as devastating as someone calling you a slut, when you are actually a slut
Nb,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 7:20pm.
She is also a total lying fraud.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
A left-wing attack...
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:33pm.
As oppossed to a freedom-loving nudge of criticism by Limbaugh, who preys on the weak and powerless to bully around. Anyone who dares speak up for women is just a "Feminazi," not someone who deserves any respect whatsoever.
He won't even get the argument right. The Birth Control controversy is not just about women wanting to have sex.
You want some cheese....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:45pm.
with that whine?
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
"weak and powerless"
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:47pm.
Yeah, that pretty much covers the way the left likes to portray their causes as they do everything within their considerable power to take complete control of everything and everyone in this country.
I don't buy it for a second. They throw dumb bunnies like Fluck to the wolves for "their cause." Then if someone points out the absurdity of their pitiful position, they scream "BULLY."
That's the main reason that they are so obsessed with teaching kids in grammar school about the "big, bad, bullies" of the world (or playground), and how they will need someone else to protect the poor little people getting bullied.
It's obscene, and tyrannical.
You hate it when they attack Palin...
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:54pm.
but why defend this name calling on a woman you don't know?
Look, I like Bill Maher, but I don't think he was right to call Palin names.
Why defend Limbaugh's offensive language?
He can defend it himself.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:32pm.
Rush can "defend" his language himself, he doesn't need others to do that for him. Quite unlike this "unfortunate" woman, apparently, who feels the need to go on national tv and have the pres defend her "honor."
If she want's to respond to Rush's insults, that's find and dandy, she's more than able to do that. She can send him an e-mail, make a twitter post, even release a "statement," and that would end it . But that's NOT what she's doing. She feels the need to PUBLICIZE this as much as she can. Why is that? The answer is obvious: for the publicity itself. The "insult" itself is immaterial, it's the publicity she's garnering that is important, to her, anyways. For if it wasn't, she wouldn't have make such a big deal about it.
As for Palin, apples to oranges, my friend. How many times did you actually SEE Palin on national TV whining about how she was being treated? The answer was "next to never" for she didn't let individual, personal insults become a huge distraction. Only a narcissist is compelled to "go public" about a perceived, personal insult in a transparent attempt to garner sympathy for themselves.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
~Palin didn't come onto the national scene
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:32pm.
because she was testifying before Congress about all the sex she couldn't afford, Fluke did.
Context is everything.
Palin has never whined and
Submitted by kareling on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:49pm.
Palin has never whined and never gone on the morning news show circuit to whine about how she's been treated; but on the occasions when she has struck back at those who attacked her and her family, the Left would accuse her of whining and being thin-skinned, and even pointing out that this is what she gets for always inserting herself and her family into the public arena.
Compare that to Fluke and the coddling and feting she's getting from the Left for it.
well said, you took my line !
Submitted by creekrat on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 7:07pm.
It IS about the bias......MSNBC had a trailer kind of saying " will Rush have the plums to walk back his comments ".
I'm thinking....... NOT !!!
Limbaugh was over the top
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:52pm.
Calling Fluke a prostitute was unwarranted and ugly. I think he should apologize to her.
However . . .
She (Hill) then asked the Republican, "How does that language affect what Republicans are trying to do and the votes that they are trying to win?"
How does Limbaugh's rant affect Republicans? Limbaugh isn't a GOP spokesman; in fact, he often slams the GOP for not being conservative enough.
The Birth Control controversy is not just about women wanting to have sex.
Right. Women can obtain contraception, and that's not going to change. The real issue is a religious/First Amendment one.
I disagree
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:07pm.
Sure, he criticizes some people in the GOP, but he's made it clear he still supports the GOP no matter what. When Michael Steele criticized him, the RNC made him apologize. It has long been known that he is the "spirit" of the GOP.
I think its an issue of medical science. Birth Control is tied to womens health. If you are going to be in the business of providing health care coverage, why should you pick and choose what you cover? If i have a religion that forbids life saving treatments, should I be able to not cover that? Whats the point of providing health care if you are not going to cover necessary treatments to preserve health?
Vandam*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:16pm.
Please take the time to listen to the entire tape of Rush calling this woman a slut. What he did was take her testimony before congress bit by bit and did analysis. Using her own words he came to the same conclusion as other responsible adults. She is a slut and wants not just approval but "free" services to continue her decadent lifestyle. The media are using a single soundbite from his commentary to trash Rush which is their usual MO.
The basis, and the error of this young woman's thinking, is liberalism. Look for justification and normalization of irresponsible behavior. Refuse to take responsibility for individual choices, always be a victim. Never accept consequences for irresponsible behavior. Demand abortion as a right and "free" services to continue a pleasure seeking existence. This is a Godless woman at a Catholic University exposing the hypocrisy of liberalism.
cajun...John Boehner calling Limbaugh's rhetoric "inappropriate"
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 7:14pm.
may carry minimal weight with most folks at NB, but I thought Rick Santorum labeling Rush's remark "absurd" might generate some further reflection on the wisdom and propriety of his choice of words. No? Rush's general narrative and his analysis of the fundamental issue at hand may very well be correct, but such fact doesn't mean the normal rules concerning good taste are suspended while making the argument.
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 7:33pm.
The vocabulary of all media outlets have fallen to the lowest level of the ladder. My argument was and is, that Rush did not label her a "slut". He drew that "conclusion" using her own words.
With no cause nor reason, I am labeled an ignorant redneck teabagging racist hater simply because I am a registered republican and conservative born to a white mother and father.
Rush did not redefine what is and is not "appropriate" for talk radio. If you listen to the tape, he was even reluctant to use the term "slut" . He even noted the hoorah that would ensue. If you listened to Rush today, he was taking calls and he was surprised at the number of people who supported him, not on the terminology, but his assessment that this argument is not about irresponsible sexual behavior, it is not about abortion and contraceptives. It is about denying religious freedom in this country. And the media will use any opportunity to deflect from the true debate.
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 8:03pm.
Presumably, you are speaking about generic labeling, and, if so, I would respond that with no cause nor reason, I am labeled a mentally diseased America-hating terrorist-coddling traitor.
It is just such toxic rhetoric from both the left and right which I am sick of, and I'm sick of the rationalizations [not from you] along the lines of 'yeah, but what we say about them is true while they lie about us.'
Jer
And if you cannot see the inherent truth in comparisons, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 1:06am.
or what you call 'rationalizations'; then you are just another "misunderstood" liberal.
What's that?
A "blinding glimpse of the obvious", you say?
You would be correct in that assessment.
MD
Yeah, if everyone could just play nice.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 1:31am.
We could go back to the elected Democrat leaders saying whatever they want and the media backing them up whilst calling the Republicans evil and stupid and uncaring and....
Ah, the good old days when there was no internet and talk radio and faranbalanced.... Sigh. Say guys, remember when we brought down a sitting President and ended that war? Sigh. Good times. Good times.
Jer, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 11:37am.
... "the normal rules concerning good taste" used to be that one would not go on tevevision before a senate committee and tell the world about your sex life as a single woman whose education is being paid for by the people you want to suck MORE money out of to cover your perceived civil rights needs.
Give me a Fluke-ing break.
Newsbubba...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 10:14pm.
and it used to be that one could listen to AM radio without hearing an enormously popular--albeit controversial--host refer to someone as a "slut". Rush could and should have made the points you raise and offered other criticisms without having to resort to personal slurs. As he now acknowledges, it was a poor choice of words which warranted an apology. It was the right thing to do. So kudos to Rush.
Jer
Only the women's health?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 3:01pm.
"Birth Control is tied to womens health."
As the saying goes: it takes two to tango. So, please, explain to me how this is only a woman's issue? If women can have free, unrestricted access to birth control, why can't men enjoy the same privilege After all, men are affected by things like STD's and Pregnancies too.
"Whats the point of providing health care if you are not going to cover necessary treatments to preserve health?"
The "issue" isn't who has access to those "treatments," as you insist, but who's going to PAY FOR IT. The "access" is already there, and has been for decades. I mean, really, just how "restricted" is something like a condom, when you can walk into just about any store in America, including grocery stores, and find several shelves full of them?
Oh, and by the way "birth control" isn't "necessary." It's selective, not corrective. It shouldn't even be covered by "insurance" AT ALL! You want to select a particular birth control "treatment? That's fine. You can pay for it yourself. Don't ask others to help "defray" you selected expenses by forcing them to "share the costs" through insurance. It's not fair to the other people, not when any woman can visit a clinic, or the college dispensary, and get condoms, the most effective "birth control treatment," with the least amount of harmful side effects (like the strokes and heart attacked the "pill" will cause later in life to most women who take them) for FREE!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Listen damage
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 3:48pm.
The main issue is government forcing the catholic church to pay for abortons and catholic hospitals to perform abortions. That is unconstitutional.
The focus on contraceptives is bogus just like the present in the white house.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I don't see the women's "health issue" in contraception . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 4:32pm.
. . . unless we equate pregnancy with disease, to be arrested and cured to preserve a woman's health.
Not all medical science is tied to health. A visectomy is a medical procedure, but it's elective surgery unrelated to the man's health. Birth control pills are medically-related, but not essential to a woman's health unless physicians determine that pregnancy would prove fatal or permanently disabling to the woman.
This is an even more important distinction when we consider the story coming out of the UK this week, where a team of medical "ethicists" at Oxford have determined that a baby which has been completed birthed can be killed (they call it after-birth abortion) because that infant is only a "potential person" and thus has no more human rights than a fetus. They rationalize and justify infanticide.
Obvioulsly, this has no more to do with women's health than does contraception, but so-called medical ethicists are steering medical science into a wholly new and perilous direction.
Jeez, this one is dense beyond words.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 3:52pm.
Here is your challenge for today, Dummy: name one, JUST one, other medical procedure or prescribed medication that the federal government mandates is to be provided FREE, WITH NO DEDUCTIBLE.
Again, just one. It could even be eye drops.
We'll be waiting.
What if the issue was euthansia?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 8:08pm.
Would the Catholic Church have to pay for that?
Weak and powerless?
Submitted by HelenS on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:16pm.
Is there anything weaker or more powerless than an unborn child? And yet I don't hear the rabid defense of those tiny little things in any of these arguments.
Get a different slogan or rent a new brain stem, because the hypocrisy is as disgusting as this whole heifer-needing-help issue.
And about your last comment: if they weren't wanting sex, what the heck do they need birth control for?
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
Ms. Fluke inserted herself
Submitted by Free Thinker on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:24pm.
Ms. Fluke inserted herself into this story by going in front of congress to whine and demand that someone else should have to pay for her birth control. Rush has only commented on her own characterization of herself - someone else should have to pay for me to have sex.
The whole debate has nothing to do with women being able to get birth control, Ms. Fluke and her friends can buy it just like everyone else, and if she can't afford it she has the right to abstain or ask her partners to pay for protection. But, she nor the federal government can not demand that she has a "right" to have someone else buy her birth control, especially religious organizations that oppose such policies in their own plans.
I have no sympathy for Ms. Fluke. Her own idiocy has put herself in the limelight and now she doesn't like it when someone calls a spade a spade. Fluke and the leftists trying to make something of nothing need to get over it.
Poor Thing
Submitted by miss911ninja on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:35pm.
Just in from the EIB Network:
I heard Rush say a few minutes ago that Obama had called Ms. Fluke "to see if she was alright."
Poor thing.
I'd lay money
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:46pm.
That Obama didn't call the families of the soldiers recently killed in Afganistan to see if they were ok.
I really really despise that man.
Safe Bet
Submitted by miss911ninja on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 3:52pm.
Yes, I think that would be a safe bet! And just think: the most recent killings came AFTER Obama's apology, which he claimed "calmed things down."
I really really despise him too. I have never said I hate him, because that just doesn't cover it. I despise him because he's DESPICABLE!
I actually agree
Submitted by truckinmann on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:46pm.
This is not about women wanting to have sex. This is about the government paying for birth control. After they establish that the government will pay for birth control, they will then claim abortion is birth control, and then say the government has to pay for them too. This is the thing that the left is not saying, because they don't want us to know what they're up to. To late lefties! We know your plans!
They argue that paying for
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 3:34pm.
They argue that paying for birth control reduces the future costs of abortions, because we all know, people are going to have sex anyway and are going to look to abortions if the women gets pregnant.
But to me, this issue should shed some light on how our culture kind of looks at this issue completely ass-backwards. I think its sort of similar to saying that, instead of teaching kids to watch their eating habits -- that doesn't work, because you know kids, they're going to overeat anyway, no matter what adults tell them -- we should just prescribe everyone anti-obesity medication, because going on anti-obesity medication prevents the costs of treating heart disease in the future.
Sex is about the only area of health care where progressives don't argue for disincentivizing or teaching against costly decisions. They want to ban salts and transfats, and tax sodas and unhealthy foods and keep them out of schools. These are all good measures, common sense would go, because they put less costs on insurance companies and the government and lead to a healthier life. So we should teach kids to eat healthy and promote healthy eating in our media, rather than all pay the costs of bad eating habits down the line. On the other hand -- abstinence education doesn't work, sex in the media isn't a problem, conservatives are nuts, and we should all subsidize people (through the government or group insurance) making the decision to have sex.
Nobody notices the contradiction.
government
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 5:16am.
The goobermint already pays for birth control. This is about the goobermint forcing private entities to provide a product for free. The government funds all kinds of things that people disagree with, but until now they have never forces a an entire industry to provide something for free.
We Are The 53%
Weak and powerless?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 5:01pm.
She's a 30 year old women's activist with people behind her.
The argument is about the government forcing religion to abandon their beliefs and purchase a product that is not necessary for a woman's health.
The Birth Control controversy is not just about women wanting to
Submitted by Spinningplates2 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 7:22pm.
You are so right. It is about giving the Federal Government the power of GOD.
Why cant the media focus on the fact she was lying about costs?
Submitted by merly1 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:34pm.
And you wonder why America spends 2.6 trillion a year in healthcare.....or why our govt
runs deficits of 1.2 trillion year after year......the real story is the activist is lying about the costs, but
of course that wont square with Dem SuperPACNBC's meme on this story.
Rush was right on the money!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:46pm.
She wants us to pay for her to be able to have sex the way she wants to.
I don't disagree with that assessment
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 6:19pm.
But when he called her a prostitute, he crossed the line.
Consequently, her testimony will get pushed to the back while the MSM carries out its attack on Limbaugh and expends it to Republicans and conservatives in general.
Actualy, that is an acurate
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 6:36pm.
Actualy, that is an acurate description of her. And apparently this woman signed up at that school for the express purpose of challenging its healthcare plan . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
So we are paying for her law
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:46pm.
So we are paying for her law degree and she expects us to also pay for her to have consequence free sex? What kind of world are we living in?
She's found the great combination of "lawyer/ho."
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:50pm.
Not only will she screw her clients, but they will have to pay her to do it!
Is this a great country, or what?
Beyond
Submitted by bobsmom on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:49pm.
this one idiot who seems to think contraception is more important than her education, I guess what saddens me about this entire fiasco is the circus our government has turned itself into. I can remember a time when testifying in front of Congress was an important thing to do, and meant something. Then the Clooney's and Jolie's started showing up, culminating in Colbert and this pinhead. Why should we take them seriously any more? I stated on another site, this whole "being offended at everything" mindset, has to be very exhausting, I know I sure couldn't maintain a state of "high dudgeon" indefinitely without suffering serious physical consequences. Geez Louise.
University graduate programs require students to be insured.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 1:56pm.
I don't know of one that does not.
Did anyone ask the knothead if she had insurance? Did anyone ask her why she can afford a $60K/year law school but not $4 a month for a cheap generic birth control pill at Walgreens?
Doc Sam
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 5:04pm.
According to her testimony she's on scholarship at Gtown. Doesn't that get your goat? Free tuition and now she wants free birth control. And we know there's a PP near every college campus.
The Horror! The Horror!
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:19pm.
"And an ugly turn in the battle over birth control. Rush Limbaugh has ruffled feathers with his choice words for a 23-year-old woman who supports insurance coverage for contraception, even at religious institutions."
How unchivalrous of him! One would think that he's almost modern in how he treats everyone equally, especially when he's denigrating them.
Hay, Lady, since when is your sex demographic exempt from insults? I thought you wanted equal rights for women. Well, if that's true, and you keep insisting that is is, then you're equally subject to ridicule as anyone else. So, no sympathy from me. Bummer, eh?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:34pm.
Ol' Rushbo is an absolute master at tweaking these sanctimonious and simple-minded libbies.
The Duck of Death.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:39pm.
This whole "controversy" reminds me of the movie Unforgiven, and one part in particular. There's a scene where the sheriff is reading from a book about one of the gun singers (English Bob, the Duke of Death): "You have insulted the honor of this Woman, said the Duck" We'll that's just what the press is insinuating! And, just like with the book, the whole "controversy" is taken completely out of context by the press, for the sake of selling their "material." Just like in the book, it didn't happen in the way it's being portrayed. All that is missing is the fictitious gunfight itself. Other than that, it's all hype and hoopla.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Rush shouldn't have called her a slut..
Submitted by greggy on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:44pm.
I'm not familiar with her testimony or her other comments, but so far as I'm aware, she didn't comment on how many sexual partners she has. In order for her to be called a "slut", she'd have to have multiple partners, probably many partners. And maybe she does - maybe she is a slut. Maybe she isn't - maybe she has a lot of sex with the same guy. Maybe she's with one guy for a year, then another the next year - that would make her a serial monogamist, but not a slut.
The thing that hacks me off is, why call her that? It's utterly unhelpful. Maybe it's accurate, and maybe it isn't - but instead of keeping the focus on the issue, which is this woman's sense of entitlement that an institution, that other people, should be forced to pay for the expenses of her sex life, by calling her a slut Rush made the conversation about himself and how "mean" he is, blah blah blah. I think Fluke has an entitlement problem, is a dogmatic nanny-state liberal, and is wrong on the issue - but Rush handed her a PR bonanza with her predictable allies in the MSM.
Accusing her of prostitution is also invalid..why? Because paying her money for birth control is not prostitution. Who's paying her money for birth control? Government, or an insurance company, or an employer. Is she having sex with the government? No. Is she having sex with an insurance company? No. Is she having sex with an employer who's paying for the birth control? Not that we know of. In other words, unless she's having sex with whoever's paying for the birth control, and is doing so in exchange for the birth control money, that's not prostitution.
Tactical stupidity on Rush's part.
The other thing that hacks me off, is that this whole birth control issue has been cooked up jointly between the Democrats, and their operatives in the media. It is a distraction intended to redirect the public's attention from Obama's poor performance on jobs, the deficit, and the economy - everyone seems to know this, and yet too many conservatives are devoting too much attention to it, playing into Democrat hands. And Rush's harsh insults played directly into the Democrat's efforts at distraction.
Fluke Is A Virgin
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 2:56pm.
I mean, just look at her. No real man would do her. If she really does take birth control pills, she does it in case she gets lucky.
I challenge any and all men that have had sex with her to come forward. I challenge her to prove she has had sex by naming the men she has had sex with. I challenge her to provide a doctors statement, receipts and proof of purchase of the birth control she claims to have paid for.
Furthermore, she is not interested in reproductive rights. As a liber, all she cares about is non-reproductive rights.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
But was he wrong?
Submitted by John21 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 3:01pm.
The "Botox Queen" is just using this as a distraction for the incompetence of this Congress and administration. It is pure political theater and badly acted at that.
The last thing she want is to talk about the record (or lack of) this administration. Notice that at no time do they try and portray the description of the woman as wrong. He points out by using her own words they are in fact accurate if not politically correct. Using simple facts easily obtained contraception is readily available and that the cost that she proclaims is far in excess of normal sexual needs.
I may not have called her a “slut” but saying she portrays female Georgetown law students as “Round heeled” or “Mattress back” or just plain “easy” is probably an insult to those students. Based on the cost of contraception the description means that each of her fellow students is so busy getting laid (3 or 4 times daily) how they have time for class. Why are the ladies (?) paying all the cost (assuming that there is a male involved in the act somewhere) what happened to equal rights? These are supposed to be law students so there is an assumption of intelligence or are they just picking them up on the street for quickies? She does not mention charging her clients so calling her a “prostitute” is questionable, though she does want to charge the tax payer for her services.
Webster Dictionary:
Slut a. a slovenly women
b. a promiscuous women
The Constitution does not
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 3:51pm.
The Constitution does not give us a right to free condoms, and even if it did, we'd also require that the gov't pay for our guns because that IS in there.
Rush is right...she's a slut. To go so far as to testify to Congress on her need for pills or condoms would have embarrassed any normal decent woman. This woman has no problem telling the world she wants us to pay for her sex.
Un-frick'n-believable!
But this is all a distraction. The Fed. gov't has no right to impose upon us to pay for anything.
One-Eighty
Submitted by IrateNate on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 4:17pm.
The argument that not providing free contraceptives will cause unwanted pregnancies is completely ridiculous. I don't care what pills people wish to ingest, provided I don't have to help buy them.
Why should anyone else be forced to cover a single penny of the cost of birth control for this princess, and the millions like her, simply to satisfy her promiscuity?
IMHO, she should simply instruct her partner(s) to play the back nine exclusively, until she is able to afford the protection she desires. Won't cost anyone a dime, and is guaranteed 100% effective.
Ha Ha, VanDamage,....
Submitted by BBallleaper on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 4:29pm.
Brain Damage.
Rush
Submitted by angelann1 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 4:55pm.
Rush is just trying to protect the American taxpayer from being "fluked"!
I am damn tired of always
Submitted by ConservativeRex on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 5:16pm.
I am damn tired of always having to pay for something I am getting absolutely no use of.
And you libs, you are the most pitiful excuse for human beings created.
You have killed this once great country, but you're not done yet.
All libs, regardless of who or where they are, are my enemy. And will be de-humanized by me as much as possible.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Yuck
Submitted by owlpellets on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 5:43pm.
This whole thing is certainly about sex. It was concocted by the Obama campaign and George Stephoshorty to distract from us focusing on how this administration sucks.
Yuck
Submitted by owlpellets on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 5:42pm.
This whole thing is certainly about sex. It was concocted by the Obama campaign and George Stephoshorty to distract from us focusing on how this administration sucks.
A ho by any other name
Submitted by Barrli on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 5:52pm.
Is still a ho. If she doesn't like to be called a ho she should stay off her back! And the ho/slut/prostitute title can apply to men as well as women, it's not gender specific. BTW, if I publicized that I was sleeping my way through school, my parents would probably have disowned me, not been proud of my "courage". Give me a break!
Ms Fluke related a story of
Submitted by RMR on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 9:20pm.
Ms Fluke related a story of one of her fellow classmates at Georgetown Law who tried to purchase contracetives and was shocked that the University health insurance didn't cover it. Is Ms Fluke saying that the vast majority of "female" students at Georgetown Law are not aware that Jesuit Colleges do not proviide contraceptives? If that's the case, then shouldn't every law firm in America be alerted to the fact that female students at Georgetown Law are so dense that they are not even aware that Jesuit colleges do not provide contraceptives?
the hypocritical, ugly, and
Submitted by BOOMER8 on Fri, 03/02/2012 - 11:00pm.
the hypocritical, ugly, and slutty left sure doesn't practice what they preach, do they? And they want to have it both ways!!
The ugliest hate I've ever seen is constantly spewing from the mouth of the left, and they don't let up!
But don't insult one of their own in the same manner!
The cost of pleasure...
Submitted by JPTSO3 on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 3:31am.
Stop me if I'm wrong, being at a Jesuit School means that its run by the Catholic Church, which means that its guided by Catholic dogma, and part of the church's dogma is, no contraception. Right? I find this edict unworkable and frankly silly. In a way its kinda like speeding in the middle of the desert. You can tell people “no” but everyone does it, including most Catholics.The fact that most don’t follow the rule isn’t the point – Fluke gave testimony in front of Congress – and became an instant celebrity on the issue of contraception. She complained that contraception can cost “$3,000 over the course of law school” and that’s about the same amount as students make a “during a summer job”.
Ok, I’m no math wizard, but I think that means, over the course of three years she’s spending about $85 a month for contraception. Yikes this girl is busy. I went to law school while I was married, and I had sex with the wife a hell of a lot less than the unmarried Fluke. Apparently she is “gettin’ some” – a lot. I researched a couple of things and this is what I came up with – Birth Control Pills cost about $20 a month ( Birth Control Pills are free at Planned Parenthood but lets assume Fluke is a “good Catholic” and hasn’t heard of them). Nonetheless ( again, I’m no math-wiz) $20, does not add up to $85, so apparently Fluke uses something other than just the pill, so lets assume she’s really smart (she is, after all, in Law School) so let’s assume she buys condoms to sheath her man/ men. Apparently her men come ….ah, completely naked. Her having a shelf-full would be really smart (she’s really smart, remember?) she’s apparently buying in bulk, thus saving a lot, and because the pill doesn't protect against STDs she has two layers of “protection”. If Fluke needs $65 a month for condoms… wooooo, she’s doing the horizontal hop…a lot. Like, twice a day, every day. This girl is Wonder Woman.. I mean, Law School, sex – twice a day, testimony before Congress – wow. Busy girl. I think there’s a solution for her, and all the other Wonder Women feminist who apparently are nymphomaniacs, AND law students…at a Catholic Universities.
I just Googled the cost of condoms and went to the Trojan website. Who knew… well, I’m thinking lots of people “knew” but I didn’t know that Trojan sells a vibrator for $59. Ms. Fluke should stop her fluking and buy a toy Heck, after her initial investment, her hummmming friend will set her back(not, on her back) only $59 and about $5 a month in batteries, depending on use. Owing to her rather active sex life, perhaps she'll spend $10 a month on batteries or invest in a recharging station. She’d be solving several of her apparent problems -
She could maybe for the fist time since she became sexually active, comply with Catholic dogma; she could save (apparently) a vagina full of money and save herself lots and lots of study time for law school owing to her always willing in-her-pocket friend. She wouldn’t have to make arrangements with a man – heck she could be in the middle of Prosser on Torts, get the urge and, wooof, into the bathroom for a little alone time and back to Mr. Prosser’s torts… depending on her friend’s setting ( high, medium or low) she fluked herself in maybe 10 minutes… tops.
There is absolutely no risk of STD (maybe an infection, if she’s a slob), and no risk of pregnancy.
She COULD be having sex a lot less
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 6:26am.
She COULD be having sex a lot less than every one thinks, and just be buying the "morning after" pill occasionally. After all, that is SO much easier than remembering how to roll on a condom when you're hot to trot or to take that dratted itty bitty pill EVERY DAY. Remember, the Obamanation administration lumped morning after into "contraception" that we have to buy for these people in this whole thing also.
Her attitude is typical of young people who have been sheltered their whole life: I want it, so Daddy/Government/somebody else should give it to me. My suggestion is that she get a job at McDonalds. She will have a lot less time to do the horizontal hokey-pokey, and could actually pay for her own stuff. Oops, I forgot to check first. DC unemployment is 10.4%. So maybe she can't get a job. Or maybe, since she IS wanting to do the hokey-pokey a lot, maybe she could join a Washington, DC "escort service" and at least get a nice tip for what she likes to do.
Dennis Prager
With all this bed hopping
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 9:04am.
going on, where does she find time for classwork?
Something smells here.
Rush is right again. What do you call...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 6:10am.
someone who wants people to pay for her having sex? As Rush says, if we're going to pay for it, the least she can do is provide videos.
(To people who are unfamiliar with Rush's humor, he is the master of illustrating the absurd with absurdity.)
P.S. I don't think any Republican leader will take some Liberal's advice and denounce Rush and if they do, I want their name!
I know I'm a fossil
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 9:01am.
However, in my day, a woman kept her sluttiness to herself. It was not a matter of personal pride to sleep with everything wearing pants.
But now, they go before a Congressional committee to testify to their immorality and the party of American immorality and perversion uphold her and want to force taxpayers to pay for it.
Rush maybe could have used better words, but what he said is still true.
The truth aint always pretty, but it is always the truth.
Sandra Fluke as Doofus Of The Day #576
Submitted by CarlS on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 10:06am.
Yesterday's Doofus = today's liar and con artist?
March 02, 2012
Yesterday I nominated Georgetown'law student' Sandra Fluke as our Doofus Of The Day #576. Turns out she resembles a Doofus rather less than she does a two-faced political hack, lobbyist, deceiver and liar. Jammie Wearing Fools reports:
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 ( http://lsrj.org/ ).
There's more at the link ( www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/ )
Needless to say, the media are in a feeding frenzy over Ms. Fluke's remarks, and how Rush Limbaugh called her a 'slut', and all the rest of the brouhaha that surrounds this incident. However, none of the mainstream media outlets I follow have yet revealed the truth about her . . . they still continue to refer to her as a 'third-year law student'. Guess who's following the 'party line' about this? It's proof once again (as if further proof were needed!) that you can no longer trust the mainstream media to report fairly or accurately about anything to do with politics. They're peddling an agenda, not the news .
SOURCE: Peter, Bayou Renaissance Man ( http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2012/03/yesterdays-doofus-todays... )
At the very least Fluke is a bona fide political slut.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 11:12am.
.
Well done! It was clear that
Submitted by celator on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 11:49am.
Well done! It was clear that the over-the-top story Fluke was peddling was preposterous on every level. Long faced Georgetown coeds moping and moaning all over the campus because they couldn't afford contraceptives? Oh the horror! The pain! The humanity!
Good to see these liars and political opportunists exposed for what thy are: shills for Obama.
The left's hypocrisy
Submitted by texasborngranny on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 1:21pm.
The left's hypocrisy is blindingly apparent in their feigned outrage over his supposed 'evisceration' of Sandra Fluke, while at the same time they rejoice in the death of the brave and honorable Andrew Breitbart.
That they can not, or will not, recognize their own and each others' hypocrisy is an exceedingly disheartening commentary on the crumbling state of journalism, politics and culture in our once great country.
Why is the media helping
Submitted by Immortal Fish on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 2:32pm.
Why is the media helping Sandra Fluke promote unsafe sex?
Rush is right ... as usual!
Submitted by MikeB on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 3:57pm.
Either she is a liar (highly probable) or she is a slut (also highly probable). Those are the only two choices, and they are not mutually exclusive. Contraception costs her $3000 a year? I have to throw the BS flag and assess a 15 yard penalty. Even if her university's student health center and/or county health department do not provide condoms at no charge to the student, contraceptives aren't going to cost the slut any $3000/year. You can purchase good condoms at walmart for as little as 39 cents each. At that price, the slut would have to be using over 21 condoms per day to make up the figure she claimed. If she was screwing that much, she sure is not studying law or anything else. Birth control pills should only cost about $1/day. The only way she can be spending $3000/year is to be getting knocked up and having an abortion at least once a year. In which case, she is not only a lying slut, she is a stupid lying slut.
Apples and Oranges...
Submitted by gxa99 on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 4:43pm.
...And Bill Clinton's "accusers" WERE sluts, trailer trash, etc... according to the useless media. But Noooooooooo, not when Rush calls it like it is... Give me a fricken break! As usual a Conservative uses a four letter word and it's beyond contempt! But when the left wing does it, it's well "deserved" and OK by the media!Paaaaaaaaaaleeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Media Networks and buddy Obama disingenuous and hypocritical
Submitted by NathanBickel on Sat, 03/03/2012 - 5:03pm.
Obama and his brown nosing, colluding, kowtowing and goose stepping media are the last people on earth who should lecture about "personal attacks." After all, they are they, who, by their agenda, actions and policies support the culture of death:
The Infanticide / Abortion Genocide US "President" Obama
http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2012/02/infanticide-abortion-genocide...
Also, please note:
"The President of the United States: A Sex Offender? - Why Obama's support of the abortion industry is the worst molestation of youth:"
http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2011/06/president-of-united-states-se...