Biggest audience in years...

[TXgolfer]

I was nice enough to email her and tell her all about Walmart.

She hasn't thanked me yet.....probably in Monte Carlo and stuff.

 

[Grayma]

feel free to create a new thread about Bill Maher. and this thread is about Rush Limbaugh, yes?

No, this is a thread about more than Rush, so there's no need for a new thread. This one is ideally suited for a discussion of the double standard on the left, and its deep-seated misogynism.

correct me if I'm wrong - are you condoning Limbaugh's use of vile language.

Consider yourself corrected. See my first sentence in post 36:

Rush was rude, obnoxious and out of line for calling the 30 year old college student who is dating a trust fund socialist and takes vacations to Spain and Italy but still wants other people to pay for her birth control a slut. He did retract his ugly name-calling.

Perhaps you can direct us to any statement you have ever made condemning or even expressing mild disapproval:
Olbermann for calling Michelle Malkin a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick
Letterman for making a rape joke about a minor child
Schultz for calling a woman a slut just because he dislikes her political ideas
Maher for telling women who breastfeed to stop showing him their *****, and that the only place food and breasts go together is Hooters; for making lewd and crude jokes about the wives and daughters of politicians, or any of the countless examples given in the links above, or about:

Media darling Wonkette wrote a vile and nasty post making fun of Trig Palin and his Down Syndrome.

Maybe you'll find something here you can bring yourself to criticize.
Or here.

And, again, the second wave of boycotts (which hs backfired) was astroturfed by Media Matters:

a well-funded organization devoted to silencing political opponents through secondary advertiser boycotts. George Soros donated $1 million in 2010 for the anti-Fox News campaign, the same year Media Matters hired Carusone for the various “Stop” campaigns.

While much of the public outcry against Limbaugh was genuine, the advertiser secondary boycott was astroturfed by Media Matters, which initiated a pre-existing “Stop Limbaugh” campaign, executed it over the first weekend of the controversy, and then hyped it and spoon fed it to the mainstream media without disclosing that a Media Matters employee was behind it all.

Rush was wrong. He was rude. He was out of line. He is often bombastic and irritating.

And I will believe somebody on the left really cares about his use of the word slut when they start calling for Obama to return Maher's million dollars and call for the Democrat guests who are proud to appear on his show to shame him and shun him.
I will believe somebody on the left really cares about women not being called sluts when Olbermann, Matthews, and Schultz are called on their vile language against women. Rush is simply not the worst offender here, and the hypocrisy cannot be ignored.

 

[Jiro]

Just a few quick questions. Did her unemployment checks expire? Was she referring to having sex with the same partner over the course of the next 3 years?

How was she paying her student fees?

I am just trying to determine how Rush Limbaugh came to the conclusion he did. As vile and nasty as his comments were ... were they accurate?

lol! asking him questions in order to answer my questions.

just plain dang pitiful. lol!

 

[TXgolfer]

i will believe somebody on the left really cares about women not being called sluts when olbermann, matthews, and schultz are called on their vile language against women. Rush is simply not the worst offender here, and the hypocrisy cannot be ignored.

this!

 

[Jiro]

Perhaps you can direct us to any statement you have ever made condemning or even expressing mild disapproval:
Olbermann for calling Michelle Malkin a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick
Letterman for making a rape joke about a minor child
Schultz for calling a woman a slut just because he dislikes her political ideas
Maher for telling women who breastfeed to stop showing him their *****, and that the only place food and breasts go together is Hooters; for making lewd and crude jokes about the wives and daughters of politicians, or any of the countless examples given in the links above, or about:

right here -

We are not concerned with leftist's double standard or Bill Maher or David Letterman or anybody else in this thread.

This is about Rush Limbaug's use of vile language and sexist remarks. Anybody else who did such thing should be shamed too.

and calling a woman slut, prostitute, and round-heeled that was uncalled for.

downright dirty and rotten, do you agree?

 

[Steinhauer]

lol! asking him questions in order to answer my questions.

just plain dang pitiful. lol!

Um ... dude, he made the statement that she claimed she wanted to have sex 3x a day over the course of the next 3 years. You didn't make that statement - so no, everything isn't about you and you are not the center of the universe (sorry for the big shock there buddy).

You are acting as if the word "slut" and "prostitute" are only used in derogatory ways. Sometimes they are not. Sometimes, they are used to describe what a person actually is.

Also - just to add, those terms are not specifically used just for women. There are male sluts and male prostitutes too. So this whole argument that he was being demoralizing to women doesn't exactly fly with me since those terms can be used interchangeably. For example, if a man said the same thing, and Rush made the same comments, would there be a huge uproar from the left over this? (probably not).

But again, I don't really care either way. Any man who tries to force a religious institution to provide condoms when he can easily provide them himself is just ... well ... I am sure Rush could describe it much better than me then apologize later for it.

 

[kokonut]

Just a few quick questions. Did her unemployment checks expire? Was she referring to having sex with the same partner over the course of the next 3 years?

How was she paying her student fees?

I am just trying to determine how Rush Limbaugh came to the conclusion he did. As vile and nasty as his comments were ... were they accurate?

He didn't come to that conclusion about her in that regard. I understood where Rush was getting at. He just framed it poorly about a scenario that Fluke set up at a "Congressional hearing."

Here's what Rush said:

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.

This is what Fluke said:

I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens.... On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman...who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage....

Without insurance coverage, contraception 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. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

Transcript Sandra Fluke Testimony before Congress, 29 Feb 2012 - Auburn Journal

Rush also discussed during the same time about this article that broke down the $3000 cost claim by Sandra Fluke.

But, back to this woman’s complaint that women are spending $3,000 for birth control during her time in college.

"For a lot of students, like me, who are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary," she complains.

So, they can earn enough money in just one summer to pay for three full years of sex. And, yes, they are full years – since that could translate into having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.

At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does CVS.com list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?)

Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn't cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).

Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate | CNSNews.com

That doesn't sound like just some casual sex if that was the case over three years worth.

 

[Jiro]

Um ... dude, he made the statement that she claimed she wanted to have sex 3x a day over the course of the next 3 years.

so.... she never said such thing and Limbaugh concocted up a wild whore story as a libel. I see. thanks for clarification.

 

[saywhatkid]

Just making sure we are talking about the same person. Is Rush Limbaugh allowed to call her names or does he need to get the "ok" from you guys first?

(that translates into - who cares what Rush had to say?)

Maybe you didn't get it the first time. I don't care. His opinions and views are his, not mine.

I think she is a sensationalist that enjoys bashing Catholicism. She isn't the first and will not be the last.

Rush Limbaugh is also a sensationalist. That is why he uses vulgar and crude language.

Just a change of subject, I found out that avacados reduce cholesterol and are a beneficial dietary supplement for good health. I am going to see what I can do to force my employers to buy some for me. :roll:

Its basic health care after all.

So, you think he is within his rights to call her slut? It is all for publicity? But when Palin is found to have one night stands, hands off?

See, I don't think anyone should be using these types of words on the public air. That is why Howard Srern is on Sirius now. I don't choose left or right. I choose down the middle or neither. Both are free to have opinions. Both should be governed by FCC regulations.

I am out of here.

 

[rolling7]

These are the words of Susan Fluke, not mine
"I hear from yet another woman....who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage."

There is no reading between the lines. Fluke is placing women's financial burden on not having contraceptives......whereas, the whole time I was thinking if there were more jobs people would not have a financial burden. My bad, it turns out the real reason, according to Fluke, is no contraceptives.

Fluke says women has a have an emotional burden because of no contraceptives but that could only come about from self-sex because if a person is having sex with a partner then two people are involved in a decision on contraceptives. Split the cost or don't have sex with the person who won't.

Medical burden?? Does this mean women get the flu more often if they don't have contraceptives? I don't know what else Fluke could be referring to. Women, and men too, have all kind of medical burdens but those have NOTHING to do with contraceptives.

 

[Jiro]

These are the words of Susan Fluke, not mine
"I hear from yet another woman....who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage."

There is no reading between the lines. Fluke is placing women's financial burden on not having contraceptives......whereas, the whole time I was thinking if there were more jobs people would not have a financial burden. My bad, it turns out the real reason, according to Fluke, is no contraceptives.

Fluke says women has a have an emotional burden because of no contraceptives but that could only come about from self-sex because if a person is having sex with a partner then two people are involved in a decision on contraceptives. Split the cost or don't have sex with the person who won't.

Medical burden?? Does this mean women get the flu more often if they don't have contraceptives? I don't know what else Fluke could be referring to. Women, and men too, have all kind of medical burdens but those have NOTHING to do with contraceptives.

all of your questions can be answered if you read the whole testimony. You should know that women's reproductive system is more complex and prone to medical issues than men.

For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.

After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.

I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’

Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.

On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.

Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.

As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’

Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.

Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were

One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.

Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.

Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.

I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.

Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.

One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.

As one other student put it: ‘This policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’

These are not feelings that male fellow student experience and they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

 

[rolling7]

I do know that but you also know (stop playing games!) that a woman's medical burdens
have nothing do to with contraceptive coverage. If a woman has a need for some health issue that is NOT matter of preventing pg. there is a seperate issue here and that issue is covered under a different part of insurance. Fluke is NOT asking and making a point to Congress about these seperate issues because she knows the necessary medicine and treatment for these seperate health, medical issues are covered differently. Fluke is trying to force the providing of B.C. pills for the prevention (maybe, 1000X maybe) of pg. resulting from sexual intercourse.

 

[Jiro]

I do know that but you also know (stop playing games!) that a woman's medical burdens
have nothing do to with contraceptive coverage. If a woman has a need for some health issue that is NOT matter of preventing pg. there is a seperate issue here and that issue is covered under a different part of insurance. Fluke is NOT asking and making a point to Congress about these seperate issues because she knows the necessary medicine and treatment for these seperate health, medical issues are covered differently. Fluke is trying to force the providing of B.C. pills for the prevention (maybe, 1000X maybe) of pg. resulting from sexual intercourse.

sounds like you're reading her mind and twisting it. why do you seem to think anybody on BC is a whore, slut, and round-heeled?

you basically proved Sandra's point

As one other student put it: ‘This policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’

These are not feelings that male fellow student experience and they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

 

[Grayma]

right here -

"anybody else who did such a thing should be shamed, too" is incredibly weak, to use your words.

You shame somebody by naming them.

 

[Grayma]

so.... she never said such thing and Limbaugh concocted up a wild whore story as a libel. I see. thanks for clarification.

No, it looks like mathematically she was either lying about the cost, or she meant what Rush said she meant.

Or perhaps she wasn't lying, she was just, um, careless with her numbers.

It appears you are also careless about reporting Rush's actual words.

 

[rolling7]

sounds like you're reading her mind and twisting it. why do you seem to think anybody on BC is a whore, slut, and round-heeled?

you basically proved Sandra's point

You are the one reading Sandra's mind and twisting her words. You are the one that posted "anyone on BC is a whore, slut, and round-heeled". You can't not find on post by me that uses those words nor even comes close to implication of those words.

Sandra's point is hypocritical because she is well aware that males have health, medical burdens that females don't have. However, she is asking for all Americans to only look at the female side. Sandra's wants us to believe that because males don't have these female burdens, that females should be of a special class and treated as such by insurance companies and the government.

 

[Jiro]

No, it looks like mathematically she was either lying about the cost, or she meant what Rush said she meant.

Or perhaps she wasn't lying, she was just, um, careless with her numbers.

It appears you are also careless about reporting Rush's actual words.

lying about the cost? it's just an estimate. she did not state it as a fact. she was giving a general overview. there are women with medical conditions out there who are suffering from undue medical costs. we cannot ignore that.

 

[rolling7]

So there are men too but she does not want us to see that. Health insurance is not just for women.
We can't ignore that.

 

[Jiro]

You are the one reading Sandra's mind and twisting her words. You are the one that posted "anyone on BC is a whore, slut, and round-heeled". You can't not find on post by me that uses those words nor even comes close to implication of those words.

here -

These are the words of Susan Fluke, not mine
"I hear from yet another woman....who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage."

There is no reading between the lines. Fluke is placing women's financial burden on not having contraceptives......whereas, the whole time I was thinking if there were more jobs people would not have a financial burden. My bad, it turns out the real reason, according to Fluke, is no contraceptives.

Fluke says women has a have an emotional burden because of no contraceptives but that could only come about from self-sex because if a person is having sex with a partner then two people are involved in a decision on contraceptives. Split the cost or don't have sex with the person who won't.

Medical burden?? Does this mean women get the flu more often if they don't have contraceptives? I don't know what else Fluke could be referring to. Women, and men too, have all kind of medical burdens but those have NOTHING to do with contraceptives.

I do know that but you also know (stop playing games!) that a woman's medical burdens
have nothing do to with contraceptive coverage. If a woman has a need for some health issue that is NOT matter of preventing pg. there is a seperate issue here and that issue is covered under a different part of insurance. Fluke is NOT asking and making a point to Congress about these seperate issues because she knows the necessary medicine and treatment for these seperate health, medical issues are covered differently. Fluke is trying to force the providing of B.C. pills for the prevention (maybe, 1000X maybe) of pg. resulting from sexual intercourse.

you are laughing at the reasoning that women need it for their medical issue. and you're scoffing at it because you don't buy it and you believe Sandra's attempting to make us pay for women's promiscuous sex.

Sandra's point is hypocritical because she is well aware that males have health, medical burdens that females don't have. However, she is asking for all Americans to only look at the female side. Sandra's wants us to believe that because males don't have these female burdens, that females should be of a special class and treated as such by insurance companies and the government.

huh what? lol!

She is asking for EQUAL ACCESS to medical health for women that men have. Women are being treated like second-class citizens by insurance companies with a policy that are more for men than women... and created by men as well.

sometimes I wonder why am I still talking to a buffoon like you

 

[Jiro]

So there are men too but she does not want us to see that. Health insurance is not just for women.
We can't ignore that.

men do not need BC for their medical issue. the point of Sandra Fluke's testimony at Congress is an equal access to health insurance for their well-being.

nowhere in her testimony stated that we should pay for condoms or safe sex. she's demanding that barriers and hindrances be removed so that women can afford to use BC for their medical reason, not sex.

For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.