Is Limbaugh stuck in 19th century?
March 08, 2012 12:01 AM | 848 views | 23 23 comments | 4 4 recommendations | email to a friend | print
DEAR EDITOR:

We do live in the 21st century, right? Is it 2012? By some of the commentaries, regarding women, being made by some presidential candidates and now, Rush Limbaugh, it almost seems like we’re living in the 19th century, when women didn’t have many rights at all.

Sandra Fluke spoke before Congress in support of President Obama’s birth control regulation, and how it should be included as part of health insurance. Rush Limbaugh lambasted her on his radio program and compared her to a slut and prostitute. He later “apologized” (not really) by saying, “My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir.” I did not know that calling this young woman a slut or prostitute would be considered humorous. Mr. Limbaugh’s arrogance is shameful. What’s also shameful is that he still has a venue where he can continue to degrade people when he doesn’t agree with them, and not suffer any consequences.

Maria Acevedo
Marietta


Comments
(23)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
maylib
|
March 11, 2012
Why is it continually lost on those having this argument that Ms Fluke was speaking about the need to cover birth control because she had a friend with a serious medical condition that was treated with birth control pills? It had nothing to do with sex. That was her entire point.
Kevin Foley
|
March 08, 2012
He didn't compare her to a slut or prostitute. He called her those things (and she likely has a very good multi-million dollar slander case against him).

This is how deep in the sewer the conservative movement has ventured. And it's why Obama will win in November.

Rush Traffic
|
March 09, 2012
You can buy a condom for fifty cents at any truck stop. That is the single package cost, buying in bulk is cheaper per item. Doing the math, she would be going through about five and a half condoms per day, every day. Sounds to me like that duck is quacking. This has noting to do with contraception or women's rights. This has to do with liberals propping up some ridiculous 31 year old supposed law student attending a Catholic institution that is not falling in line with the Obama administration. If she can see herself through paying $50K annually in tuiton, she could give up a Starbuck's latte to support her habit.
cossacksare
|
March 09, 2012
@Rush Traffic: You realize that this is about birth control pills, not condoms, right? You can't just take a pill whenever you want to have sex and get the contraceptive benefits, though I realize that Rush might think that's how it works, given his affection for Viagra.
eCobb Dad of 3
|
March 10, 2012
Kevin thank you for proving my point. Your statement is a perfect example of how the left tries to limit speech they disagree with. Rather than publicly condemn and ostracise Rush as he should have been in this case everyone in the liberal media says she should sue. So let's examine that statement for a second. What law did he break exactly? I'm willing to bet a paycheck you can't cite one. I seem to remember a little thing called freedom of speech. But hey let's not go there. Let's assume she was allowed to bring a lawsuit. Aside from the fact it would be a frivolous shake down she would have no case. Truth is a defense in a slander case. Now I'm in no way saying the statements made against her were truthful but as you can clearly see from the ongoing debate finding a jury to agree with Ms. Fluke is likely going to be very difficult and some people are going to agree with Rush's point of view. Another factor to consider is damages. How exactly was she damaged in this case? Let's be honest she hasn't. If anything she is very likely benefiting from this misstep. How much you want bet to be she hasn't gotten a job offer out of this? She won't be able to prove damages. Has she lost money, a job or any other economic opportunity as a result of this? You're intelligent enough to know the answer to that.

I just love how everyone's first reaction when life throws them a curve is to sue. No wonder why the courts and the taxpayers money is wasted.

Your statement to sue is just another example of how the "progressive" crowd attempts to limit free speech. It's almost as bad as Gloria Alred's calling for Rush to be arrested for his statements. Sometimes I wonder if i'm living in 1930's Germany.
anonymous
|
March 11, 2012
I am fairly certain that "everyone" in the liberal media is not calling for a lawsuit. In any case, the facts of the situation are that she is not a prostitute, even if she has sex with a dozen different guys a day, because they are not paying her for sex.
wonderin
|
March 08, 2012
In the old days when things were not going according to plan, men blamed women and called it Witchcraft.......Today they call it The Republican Party.
Too funny
|
March 08, 2012
Rush is an entertainer so his job is based on ratings - nothing more. If his listeners disagree with his language, they will turn him off. If people want to agree with his purposefully incendiary premise that woman who use contraception are sluts, then they can certainly believe that - there is no law against stupidity. But at the end of the day, Rush has the same freedom of speech, even if its ugly, that the rest of us have.

As for the root issue of religiously affiliated institutions being mandated to offer contraceptive benefits as a part of their health plans, in a perfect world the market would handle this and not the government. If all female employees (and sympathetic male employees) of catholic hospitals, schools, etc. either didn’t apply for jobs there or quit as a result of the these organization's archaic and backwards beliefs, then I imagine these organizations might be forced to catch up to the 21st century. Of course that’s an unlikely scenario, hence the mandate.
anonymous
|
March 08, 2012
"Sandra Fluke spoke before Congress in support of President Obama’s birth control regulation, and how it should be included as part of health insurance"

Maria, you got this all wrong. She spoke in front of a bogus committee hearing, intentionally set up to make the Republicans look bad and give the president a chance to improve his horrid poll numbers with the female demographic (all those moms who've been losing their homes and jobs are finally catching on to him, and the young college girls are much more concerned with other things this political season).

Not only that, your wording neglects to explain how this woman was up there DEMANDING that taxpayers pay for her birth control or at the very least that Obama use the power of the government to force private insurers to pay, which only drives costs up and besides that goes against every tenet of a free society.

Quit thinking on such small and petty terms lady. This is bigger than whether you get your Yaz each month for free. By the way, if you're a liberal who wants to get free pills, you go get them at Planned Parenthood, provided by charities that fund it (there you go, supporters of Komen). You're basically giving your money one way or another. Nothing is free. Start taking responsibility for your own bodies! This is what I did and this is what I taught my daughters. And yes, if that had been them up there (and it would not have been) I'd have been terribly disappointed. The entitlement mentality has permeated our world to the extent I fear we are doomed. What's next? Will you people demand we provide your botox too, your tanning bed time?

cossacksare
|
March 08, 2012
Government already mandates that insurers cover certain things. How was it totally okay until a woman asked for contraceptive mandates, when it became a threat to individual freedom?

You're also ignoring the fact that her whole testimony was about the uses of birth control that do not have a sex component, such as for treatment of ovarian cysts.
@cossackare
|
March 08, 2012
You make an excellent point. The government should not dictate to companies providing healthcare what they must cover. Let the free market decide. Let the people decide what options they want to pay for. So, it is not "totally OK".
cossacksare
|
March 08, 2012
Then where was your outrage before this woman mentioned contraceptives?
@cossacksare
|
March 09, 2012
My "outrage" has been "on the back burner" while I earned a living for my family. However, since you socialists are demanding more and more and contributing less and less, my outrage has come forward, just like a lot of people fed with your ilk. You will be seeing my outrage on a regular basis from now on. I am not alone.
Laura Armstrong
|
March 08, 2012
Note how the Democrats just want to shut people up, take away their "venues" and their sponsors.

That'll teach em, right, you guardians of free speech!

By their non-factual comments, it's obvious Maria and the Last Ga Dem have not listened to Rush Limbaugh this last week. Likely never.

What's funny is that at least two of the advertisers that pulled from Rush's show, Sleep Number Beds and the computer backup company, are now advertising on FOX News Channel. The lesson here, Last Ga. Dem, is that companies need to advertize to conservatives because they are the demographic that actually keeps business going. What a bunch of hypocrits you all are!
anonymous
|
March 08, 2012
Whats also funny is that I don't recall their concerns of 19th century thinking in the modern day when Bill Maher, Louie CK and others were swatting Sarah Palin with some truly degrading comments. (We surely did not see Ms.Acevedos letter to the Editor in the MDJ).

Gotta love the libs. Their oh so correct contemporary thinking and calls for civility extend only so far as they agree with what you have to say (or what they think you have/would say).

Sadly, most libs don't even actually listen to what people they disagree with say. The libtards rely on other libtards to tell them who to be outraged about/hate/offended by, etc.
Last GA Democrat
|
March 09, 2012
Ms. Armstrong, you sound as if you have misinterpreted my comments.

I didn't say that it was okay that the left wants to take away Rush's venues and sponsors.

I said that Limbaugh has suffered enough damage from the fallout after his poorly-thought out comments and there is no need for the left to be totally slash-and-burn in trying to silence Rush and anyone who opposes their agenda.

Jane W.
|
March 08, 2012
President Obama's reelection team has just accepted a $1 million donation from liberal comedian Bill Maher.

On his HBO show Maher uses the c-word and terms like "boob" to denigrate women he disagrees with.

Is the president in the process of drafting a speech stating why this, too, is revolting and unacceptable? Is the above Maria upset that he hasn't yet -- and probably won't? And that the liberal mainstream media isn't demanding it?
Samuel Adams
|
March 08, 2012
It's all a show Jane. These operative women are playing regular women, which is the height of condescension in itself.

The real thing we should be discussing is Obama's continued break from reality when it comes to the cost of gasoline. Just watch him on this topic. Or his lack of a housing policy. How many women and children have been forced from their homes because his one program was a miserable failure?
cossacksare
|
March 08, 2012
@Samuel Adams: I love your beer, but your opinions are not so intoxicating. Particularly disturbing is your statement that Ms. Fluke is somehow not a "regular woman." Are you saying that anyone who has political opinions is suspect--that the only people with trustworthy political opinions are people without political opinions?
anonymous
|
March 08, 2012
One million went to Obama's Super Pac just as Newts millions from a Las Vegas, Hong Kong gambler and Santorums single source financier. As a Super Pac none has any control over them. Thank you Supreme Court! Jane who represents the "Party of personal responsibility" deflects any responsibility on to Bill Maher and others rather than address what the grand Poo-Bah Limbaugh said or did. Maher appears only on cable, paid for by subscribers, Limbaugh is accountable to his empoloyers and sponsors, if you do not like what Maher says I suggest you cancel your HBO.
eCobb Dad of 3
|
March 08, 2012
Maria I pretty much agreed with everything you said up until the last sentence. I like Rush though his choice of words to prove his point crossed the line in this case. However, saying that he should not have a venue to continue on with his position is un-American. Ever hear of free speech? He has the right to say stupid things just like you or I. I could apply your argument about almost all of the MSNBC commentators because they have put their foot in their mouths many more times than Rush ever has. However, they have their right to speak out no matter how much I disagree with it. Your assertion his speech should be limited is Stalinistic. If you don't like what he has to say then turn the channel or boycott his sponsors.
Last GA Democrat
|
March 08, 2012
"Mr. Limbaugh’s arrogance is shameful. What’s also shameful is that he still has a venue where he can continue to degrade people when he doesn’t agree with them, and not suffer any consequences."

Limbaugh has suffered very severe consequences in that as of Midnight Eastern Standard Time on Thursday the Rush Limbaugh Show has reportedly lost close to 50 major high-dollar sponsors.

With the loss of numerous major advertisers, tens-of-millions in advertising revenues and hundreds-of-stations around the country being pressured by left-wing interest groups to drop Rush's program, the point has been proved that Limbaugh's comments towards Ms. Fluke were clearly inappropriate.

Limbaugh has just as much of a right to speak his opinion as Ms. Fluke did on Capitol Hill and everyone has the right to disagree with Limbaugh and demand that sponsors drop their ads.

But getting sponsors to yank their ads from his show just does not seem to be enough by the left who has been feigning to see Rush yanked off of the air and silenced completely so that they can more easily advance their socialist agenda much less resistance.

Rush has suffered enough for his mistakes, there is no need for the left to continue on their slash-and-burn crusade to silence all dissent against their socialist agenda.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides