Where's the outrage?

Any posts here about it? Any of the libs here call him a pig and demand he be fired?

Can you say swept under the carpet?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeGQr9TK6g]Libtalker Ed Schultz: Laura Ingraham's 'A Slut' - YouTube[/ame]

Get off the high horse Kahuna, and I don't care what you think. I'm a big fan of Rush Limbaugh. I revel in his "decapitation" and "dismantling" of all things "leftist".

He's the most solid speaker of the conservative cause and I'm just one of millions who listen to his show and know the character of the man in a way people on their high horse of selective outrage can't and won't see.

It's not my problem that he says things that irk you, and he is proved right over and over again. You don't like his style, too bad.

I'm proud to be conservative minded, I'm proud to be a fan of Mr. Limbaugh, and I also don't give a rat's patootie what you think about it.

So, you know where to stick your distain.

Oh yeah, I remember when all the lefties were carrying torches and calling for the head of Ed Shultz for calling breast cancer survivor Laura Ingraham a slut.................YEAH, like that ever happened.

Rush Limbaugh may have gone a bit too far in his parody of comments made by the law school leftist activist who "testified" before Nancy Pelosi's sham hearing, but I judge him by his whole body of work over 20 plus years, and refuse to throw him under the bus for offending the sensibilities of his rabid enemies. I'm loyal that way.

It's great that the President called the lefty law student to console her over Rush's remarks............The parents of the border agent killed because of the actions of his administration are still waiting for their call from the President.

Richie, when you use the term report in your post, you SHOULD be reporting fact, when you comment on silly fiction, you are not reporting. Try to use that in the future and you will not get all the hate mail.

I will repeat one more time and then stop wasting my time. The man called a woman a slut and a prostitute for expressing her opinion.The explainations that some of you give for defending Rush are hilarious if they weren't so sad That is simply wrong and any who choose to defend it are wrong.

His 'whole body of work'. I love it. Mr. Bouncy Bouncy is a 'piece of work' whose body needs no description. :boom:

Ed Schultz apologized to Laura Ingraham and was given a week off with no pay by MSNBC. Don Imus was fired by MSNBC for racist/sexist remarks he made about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Pat Buchanan, a long time employee of MSNBC, was recently fired for supposedly racist remarks.

Rush Limbaugh owes Ms Fluke an apology.

I don't see him doing it. He is so far removed from being a decent human. It seems folks that are so very far off the Civility Line of decency, they slip into fools coma. The fanatical Right believe everything they hear on FOX and the Fanatical Left believe everything they hear on MSNBC. Both sides are idiots for doing so. When you fail to hear all sides of an issue and then make your decision of the best way to proceed, you are being very uninformed and closed minded. That is this countries enemy.

Is there some reason you keep building straw men to knock down? Do you know what Fluke actually SAID? You know - about the friend with cysts and all the other reasons for birth control?

And is there some reason you're calling these women 'sluts' but the guys they're supposedly having sex with are getting a free pass?

MSNBC did the right thing. Will Clear Channel step up to the plate and demand Rush Limbaugh apologize and suspend or fire him?

This whole thing is no more than a contrived diversion away from this miserable failure of a president.

Wow, Rush is so evil... while Obama trashes America and the left willingly runs cover for him.

I heard a report that after he finishes wrecking America he’s going to take over North Korea where a man of his stature is more appreciated.

VK is on the high road as usual, and also, as usual, you take the low road. Limbaugh devotees call themselves ditto heads, apparently because they cannot think for themselves and simply say dittos to everything their guru says for them. Limbaugh has a few million devoted followers, who are simply like-minded bigots and he influences no one that isn't already inclinead to beleive like him. His oft-stated infuence, (by dittoheads like richie), is to influence only other right wingnuts and extremists, and he has never influenced a thinking electorate. I would, by the way, include bill maher in the same discussion. John Stewart has more ability in his little finger that either limbaugh or maher have in their entire body. Now richie pour out your self-righteous venom on me, just like your hero.

Amazing how the left seems to care more about what a talk show host says than protecting America from the Obama wrecking crew.

Now there's patritism for you.

If you are addressing me, I am not what most would consider left, even though I am that direction from you and richie. You may note I also dissed bill maher and don't care for either extreme. I am not a big obama supporter either, but recognize some good things he has done. The outrage at limbaugh has NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA.

Someone needs to explain women's contraception to Rush Limbaugh. By his rantings, he seems to think that the more sex a woman has the more pills she needs to take. FYI Rush, a woman takes one pill a day whether she has sex or not. Limbaugh is confusing women's contraception with his own need for Viagra for his erectile dysfunction which, as I understand, must be taken each time before sexual activity.

BTW: three years ago today, Rush Limbaugh was detained by US Customs officials coming back from the Dominican Republic with some other guy's Viagra. Happy Anniversary Rush.

Wake up. Maybe not for you but it has EVERYTHING to do with Obama. It's a total diversion away from Obama's miserable record and this whole birth control thing was contrived out of the blue for exactly that reason. There will be many many more this year. Watch and see.

For instance, they don't want people talking about six dollar a gallon gas, they want people talking about non-issues made up by them.

The lefties on this forum do it all the time. It's so obvious it's almost funny. They would much rather talk about Rush's Viagra than Obama's failure as a president, which of course they still fully support even to the detriment of their own country. In my book that's far more scandalous and pathetic than anything a radio guy says.

The title of this thread is "Rush Limbaugh" not the price of gas. President Obama is a political genius for making this part of The Affordable Health Care Act, and republicans took the bait and now will probably lose most of the women's vote.

I have to say that this is a "spot on" observation. Talk about anything ridiculous in the news in order to drive the attention away from the important matters.

I was going to ask why Ms. Fluke, as a reportedly 23 year old college co-ed, is not on her parents health insurance since she is under 26 years of age.

Then I found out that she is actually a 30 year old woman's rights activist and a past president of "Law Students for Reproductive Justice."

It sounds like a diversion plant to me...and I think Rush just got caught up in the moment.

So now we're all bashing Rush while gas, Afghanistan and everything else has been put on the back burners. Good grief :sigh:

Well, there you have it. "bait"

For the next 9 months, let's talk about anything but what actually matters to America. The left would love that now wouldn't they?

Well, you can definitely see that Obama is going to win again in November. Thinking women will not vote for a Republican as long as Limbaugh is still on the radio waves. Minorities will not vote for a Republican. Democrats will not vote for a Republican.

What do you have left in the Republican party? It looks as though the Republican voters will consist of Lassen and RichieLion.

That was the I have nothing intelligent left to say so nah nah nah on you statement. It's no wonder America is in trouble.

She said more than that. That wasn't her whole statement. She testified that sexually active students in Catholic colleges were in financial trouble because of birth control and somehow it's the Church's responsibility to provide it for them for free.

You cherry pick only one of her statements for an agenda.

I don't have to. You post with it's drivel says enough. You have no idea what your talking about, and I don't have the inclination to correct you as you wouldn't care anyway as you sit with VK in your self righteousness.

Rush has been the highest rated, most influential broadcaster for over 20 years and this "gotcha" moment is not going to change that. It might even expand his audience as people tune is to see what this is all about and to hear what he will say to all the invective coming his way, and get intrigued by the brilliance in political observation that is his hallmark.

I don't have to attack you. It's you lefties who are attacking me. I'm just sitting here chuckling at the ignorance coming my way.

I think he knows. I think everyone knows. We also know that you can't force the Catholic Church in violation of it's First Amendment Rights to finance birth control. Amazing how that keeps coming up, and you lefties keep ignoring this, the most pertinent aspect of the conversation.

This female student was trying to convince Nancy Pelosi's sham committee that the sexual "needs" of college underclassmen in a Catholic University was of higher importance than that college's First Amendment protections.

is this really too hard for you to grasp?

typical character assignation ploy

No one is able to grasp anything but you richie. Amazing how brilliant you are and how stupid everyone else is. Please, please regale us with some more of your insights.

President Obama came up with a compromise that the Catholic Church was satisfied with by having insurance companies pay for the contraception.

I'm not sure Rush knows how women's contraception works when he says "She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception". It doesn't matter if a person is having no sex, sex once a day, 10 times a day or 100 times a day, it still requires only one pill.

With 30 years experience in the health insurance industry, I can tell you it does not cost an employer group any more money in premiums to cover birth control pills. To the contrary, it costs more for the insurer to pay for the prenatal care and delivery of pregnant women so it is considered the norm for the pill to be covered. An employer group would specifically have to request they be excluded from coverage as it is an automatic benefit. The argument that it shouldn't have to be paid for by the college/church holds no water.
And I gotta say this - dklassen, it appears that you have an attraction to our President because it seems to me that you can think of nothing else.
VK, you are my hero with the most interesting and well-written posts. You don't talk much, but when you do people listen and think.
Richie, you continue to dumbfound me.
Back to obscurity..

Anytime. I'm always here to provide you with the clarity you need. Thank goodness for that, huh?

This statement holds no water, as you say. The First Amendment is crystal clear in it's simplicity. It's intent is clear. No matter how you or others would try to twist reality to redefine it's meaning and intent, it cannot be done.

You would have to overturn the First Amendment protection of Freedom of Religion to further your agenda, or get the Supreme Court to "redefine" it's meaning.

Apparently all republicans want to talk about is women's reproductive rights as they try to pass "personhood" amendments, state-mandated trans-vaginal probe laws, defunding Planned Parenthood, trying to end the Susan G Koman breast cancer screenings, etc etc.

Rick Santorum, Gov Bob McDonald, Joe Arpaio, and Rush Limbaugh are the gifts that keep on giving to the re-elect Obama campaign.

I don't know who is the Catholic Church was "satisfied". Did the Pope agree to Obama's "compromise"? Of whom are you speaking?

Churches that pass a four-part government test can win a conditional exclusion from the mandate, according to the regulation. Schools, hospitals, universities and charities run by religious communities would have to comply with the mandate, or pay expensive fines.

As reported in The Daily Caller website:

"On Feb. 10 Obama said he would “accommodate” public objections in 2013 by directing health insurance companies to provide free contraceptives to workers whose religious employers object to abetting contraception, instead of having the churches directly pay the insurance companies for the services.

However, Obama did not change the text of the Jan. 20 regulation, which was enacted Feb. 10, and did not acknowledge any error."

So, Obama said that the Church would not have to "pay" for the pharmaceuticals involved, and he was "mandating" that insurance companies give free pharmaceuticals to anyone who wants them?

Really??; the President can order private businesses to give away products??

The language in the original text is not changed and the actual recompense for these items is not clearly stated as to it's origins.

Smoke and mirrors Jan, it's all smoke and mirrors.



Read more: Barack Obama | Georgetown Student | Contraception Debate | The Daily Caller

Good grief. Did President Obama bring up these issues? Wasn't it Rep Darrel Issa R-CA that conducted the hearing on women's health issues? Wasn't it Gov Bob McDonald R-VA who wrote the state-mandated vaginal probe law, wasn't it the republican state legislature in MS that tried to pass the now failed "personhood" amendmant, wasn't it Rick Santorum that said that state's have the right to ban contraception? Look around at all the republican legislatures around the country trying to pass these women's health issues bills, including FL.

President Obama goes all over the country talking jobs, the economy, foreign policy, while republicans continue to alienate more and more women.

I've given this issue a lot of thought and I've changed my position. I think Liberals should indeed have all the free birth control they want. Where do I send the check?

Georgetown University Student Insurance Fund would be a nice start.

Xavier

Laura Ingraham said on her Facebook page that she is still waiting for her call from Obama since Ed Shultz called her a slut on MSNBC.

(He also called her this out of the blue when the topic had nothing to do with sex, as in the 30 year old political activist who has become the "contraceptive rights poster girl".)

Rush Limbaugh is not an employee of Clear Channel, but an independent businessman. I'm guessing Rush is going to apologize for diverting attention from the real issue with his, I guess, failed attempt to attack an issue with humor. I guess it was the "s" word that was the damning act here.

I guess we'll see whether Clear Channel will rate your indignation over the value of their highest revenue creator.

I guess we should all boycott anything Cloris Leachman is in, like the TV Show "Raising Hope" since she called Sarah Palin a slut on the Wendy Williams show. It was so funny to Williams' audience when Leachman did that. How despicable for that audience to laugh. Do you think that audience is laughing or raging at Rush's remark?
Cloris Leachman Calls Sarah Palin a Slut | The Wendy Williams Show

...

The term "dittos" started early in Rush's talk radio career, it meant that the listener liked him, enjoyed his show and listened often. People wasted their precious broadcast time repeating this as the previous callers had already said so, so they start saying dittos meaning what the previous fans had said.

The BHO Regime started this whole contraception issue when one of their operatives at CNN brought it up at a debate, out of the blue. They know they can not win on a pro-life stance, so they changed the topic to artificial contraception. The Obamacare also demanded free abortafacients and abortion.

95% of pregnent women change their mind about having an abortion when shown an ultrasound picture of their unborn child.

This contraception debate is taking the heat off of the Regime that has ruined the economy, driven up unemployment, driven up the price of fuel, and so forth.

By saqying that The Church should accept the "compromise" ignores the fact that the money is fungible if used to pay premiums, but it also neglects the fact that main Dioceses are self insured.

The following is testimony given by Bishop Lori of Bridgeport, CT, Worthy Supreme Chaplain, which may help to show the problem of forcing religious organizations to provide abortions:

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it The Parable of the Kosher Deli.
Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork.
There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community — whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides — expresses its outrage at the new government mandate.

And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork — not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths — because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty.

They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle.

They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced — under threat of severe government sanction — to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you.”

It is, after all, the “other white meat.”

Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.”

Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following:

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate.

Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe — even if they believe in error — that pork is not good for you should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not — and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions.
Does the fact that large majorities in society — even large majorities within the protesting religious community — reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power?

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards.

Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews.

Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers.

Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: Can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli?

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

So, in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners and offer them a new “accommodation.”

You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer.

But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises and to offer, prepare and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept.

And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself.

But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things:

First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers themselves are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.
This story has a happy ending: The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.

The question before the United States government — right now — is whether the story of our own church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too.

Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity?

We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be: Yes.

We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way. Thank you for your attention.


Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., is the chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

He offered this statement on behalf of the conference today, Feb. 16, before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s hearing

“Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”

I didn't hear Ed Schultz's comment because he made it on his radio show, which I don't listen to, but he called Laura Ingraham personally to apologize and offered to MSNBC to be taken off the air indefinitely. If Rush Limbaugh did the same thing, that would be fair.

Rush Limbaugh has a contract with somebody who is paying him millions of dollars a year, and the only company I heard mentioned was Clear Channel.

That's the first I heard about Cloris Leachman's remark about Sarah Palin, but I found it reprehensible.

Don Imus apologized for his remark, but was fired by MSNBC anyway.