• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rush Limbaugh selection in children’s book competition causes a stir

Hey man its your dime

I would buy this before spending money on this jerk

00729863-125824_700.jpg


Is that really a book? SMH ....
 
Well, if Sharpton writes a book, he better write better than he speaks or no one will be able to understand what he is trying to say.


 
I have to agree, your post is the very embodiment of 'bigot'. Thank you for the demonstration.


Anytime a right wing whack job tries to play the bigot card, I know they are done.
 
I once did the math on how much money she wanted for 'free' condoms and it came out to getting laid over 300 times per day, every day. Yeah that meets the criteria "slut" imo.

I see no mention of free condoms in her testimony. She mentions an annual cost of over $3000 for contraceptives which is probably the cost of the exams and prescriptions required to use oral contraceptives, an IUD or some other methods.

Have any of you actually read what she said?

"Leader Pelosi, members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women's health and for allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.

My name is Sandra Fluke, and I'm a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I'm also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, or LSRJ. And I'd like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies, and all of the student activists with us, and thank them so much for being here today.

We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we're so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially, emotionally and medically, because of this lack of coverage. And so I'm here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them -- them, not me -- to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, 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. Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they've struggled financially as a result of this policy.

One told us of how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance, and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn't afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.

Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into their budget any more. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face this same choice.

And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's just not true. Women's health clinics provide a vital medical service, but, as the Guttmacher Institute has definitively documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.

How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio and Blunt legislation, that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage, and then respond that the nonprofit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis; particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer very dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown's insurance, because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately, under many religious institutions' insurance plans, it wouldn't be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Senator Blunt's amendment, Senator Rubio's bill or Representative Fortenberry's bill, there's no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

When this exception does exist, these exceptions don't accomplish their well-intended goals, because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, a woman's health takes a backseat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body. In 65 percent of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20 percent of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verification 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 of 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 woke up thinking I'd 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 awaking 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 not to have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown's policy, she hasn't been reimbursed for her medication 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 handled 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 students experience, and they're not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking, what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up the Jesuit creed of "cura personalis," to care for the whole person by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for us as students, they would help us. We expected that when 94 percent of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university.

We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere and -- even if that meant going to a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that in the 21st century anyone thinks it's acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.

Many of the women whose stories I've shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the health care we need. The president of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed, and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.

Thank you very much."
In Context: Sandra Fluke on contraceptives and women's health | PolitiFact
 
Following are quotes from his broadcast transcripts, posted on the Limbaugh Web site.

Wednesday :

1) Can you imagine, if you’re her parents, how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.

2) Sandra Fluke, one of the Butt Sisters, is being dragged out of law school by the hair. Wait ’til Rick Santorum hears about this. Wait ’til Gingrich hears about this! What do you think they’ll do? They’ll put a stop to this right away! They’ll head over that university and they’ll stop it!

They’ll spy on Sandra Fluke and interrupt her in mid-coitus, and then they’ll make ’em get married.

3) What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and 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. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.

4) Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled.” I take it back.

Thursday :

5) The reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke — or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is — the Georgetown student who went before a congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex, she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them.

6) I said, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex — what would you call that woman? You’d call them a slut, a prostitute.

7) The headline: “Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate — A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control.” Cybercast News Service. So what would you call that? So I called it what it is.

8) Why go before a congressional committee and demand that all of us — because they want to have sex any time, as many times and as often as they want, with as many partners as they want — should pay for it? Whatever, no limits on this. I mean, they’re going broke having to buy contraception!

9) Sandra Fluke reported to Pelosi: “It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations. ‘Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,’ Fluke told the hearing. . . . That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex — and, she wants us to pay for it.” Now, what does that make her? She wants us to buy her sex. She wants us to pay for her sex, and she went to a congressional committee to close the sale.

10) At $1 a condom, if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s Web site, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms, or a thousand of them a year. We’ve done all kinds of research on this. And what about these deadbeat boyfriends or random hookups that these babes are encountering here, having sex with nearly three times a day? While in law school.

11) Okay, so this is a law student at a congressional committee asking for us to pay for the things that make it possible for her to have sex.

Therefore we are paying her to have sex.

Therefore we are paying her for having sex.

We are getting screwed even though we don’t meet her personally!

12) Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex?

13) So, if we’re gonna sit here, and if we’re gonna have a part in this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke: And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money.

14) Ms. Fluke, who bought your condoms in junior high?

15) Stop the tape. Courageous. Recue that to the top. Courageous, having so much sex she’s going broke at Georgetown Law. (laughing) Gosh, I love this.

16) Folks, for all the hilarity that’s contained in what’s going on here . . . here’s a woman exercising no self-control. The fact that she wants to have repeated, never-ending, as often as she wants it sex — given.

17) Did you notice in that sound bite Sheila Jackson Lee or Maria Cantwell or one of them talked about the strength that Sandra Fluke had to go before Congress, which is amazing. She’s having so much sex it’s amazing she can still walk, but she made it up there.

18) Do you realize at the end of the day what’s happening here? The Democrats are putting on parade a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her-life woman. She wants all the sex in the world, whenever she wants it, all the time. No consequences. No responsibility for her behavior.

Friday

19) Obama just called Sandra Fluke to make sure she was all right? Awwww. (kissing sound) That is so compassionate! What a great guy. The president called her to make sure she’s okay. What is she, 30 years old? Thirty years old, a student at Georgetown Law, who admits to having so much sex that she can’t afford it anymore.

20) Okay. Let me ask you a question. I might be surprised at the answer I would get to this question. Your daughter appears before a congressional committee and says she’s having so much sex, she can’t pay for it and wants a new welfare program to pay for it. Would you be proud? I don’t know about you, but I’d be embarrassed. I’d disconnect the phone. I’d go into hiding and hope the media didn’t find me. See, everybody forgets what starts this, or what started this whole thing. Or maybe they don’t! Maybe that’s normal behavior on the left now, for all I know.

21) So Pelosi arranges her own press conference for the woman, and the woman makes it clear (her name is Sandra Fluke) that she’s having so much sex, she can’t pay for it — and we should. She’s having so much sex, she can’t afford it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ke-20-attacks/2012/03/04/gIQA1OkHtR_blog.html
 
Among Rush's many lies is the way he makes up "facts" about Fluke's personal sex life*, which was not mentioned by her at all, she only mentions other people.

* For example: Rush: "...[Fluke] admits to having so much sex that she can’t afford it anymore."
 
I see no mention of free condoms in her testimony. She mentions an annual cost of over $3000 for contraceptives which is probably the cost of the exams and prescriptions required to use oral contraceptives, an IUD or some other methods.

Have any of you actually read what she said?.

Of course not. He's simply repeating the right wing nut talking points he heard on right wing nut job radio.
 
Of course not. He's simply repeating the right wing nut talking points he heard on right wing nut job radio.

I should note that Fluke used the $3K figure for during law school, not per year.
 
Of course not. He's simply repeating the right wing nut talking points he heard on right wing nut job radio.


The 3 grand for one year of condoms reminds me of the old joke.

What's the difference between an old tire and 365 used condoms?

Wait for it..




















































One is a Good Year, the other is a GREAT YEAR!
 
I see no mention of free condoms in her testimony. She mentions an annual cost of over $3000 for contraceptives which is probably the cost of the exams and prescriptions required to use oral contraceptives, an IUD or some other methods.

Have any of you actually read what she said?
Yes, we've been over it thoroughly: http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-political-scandal-du-jour/120600-why-slut-fatal-rush.html

I was wrong, she wasn't having sex 300 times per day, but 10 times per day. That's still qualifies her as a slut:

About $10 gets a box of 36 condoms at walmart. So $3,000 = 10,800 condoms / 3 years = 3,600 condoms / 365 days in a year = ~10 condoms per day.

So she's having sex 10 times a day and complaining that she's having so much more sex than that, she can't afford additional condoms.

And that's not accounting for any instance the man provides the condom.

Yes, this conclusively proves that she is indeed a "slut".

Assuming Ms. Fluke's budget of $1,000 per year, the higher cost of $50 per month of 'the pill', and the previous Wall-Mart quote for condoms at $10pr box of 36:

The Pill: $50 pr/mo X 12 months = $600

The remaining $400/$10pr box = 1440 condoms / 365 days in a year = ~4 condoms per day.

So Ms. Fluke is having totally protected sex, pill and condom, 4 times per day with no days off for 3 years straight.

Yes, this defines her as a "slut".
 
Last edited:
Yes, we've been over it thoroughly: http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-political-scandal-du-jour/120600-why-slut-fatal-rush.html

I was wrong, she wasn't having sex 300 times per day, but 10 times per day. That's still qualifies her as a slut:

Read her actual testimony in posts #480 & 481

Among Rush's many lies is the way he makes up "facts" about Fluke's personal sex life*, which was not mentioned by her at all, she only mentions other people.

* For example: Rush: "...[Fluke] admits to having so much sex that she can’t afford it anymore."
 
Read her actual testimony in posts #480 & 481
I will, if you can tell me how her testimony is directly relevant to the children's book this thread is about. Does Fluke mention the book? Does the book mention Fluke? Is the book about safe-sex and BC? Is Fluke's testimony about US history?
 
I will, if you can tell me how her testimony is directly relevant to the children's book this thread is about. Does Fluke mention the book? Does the book mention Fluke? Is the book about safe-sex and BC? Is Fluke's testimony about US history?

As I said in post#238 "If the books are presented as pure fiction, or are historically accurate, I have no issue with the choice. If he misrepresents history to support arguments for the socially harmful aspects of his worldview (ie. his nationalism, racism and sexism), then I find it objectionable. As long as the Children’s Book Council is not funded by taxpayers they have the right to choose any authors."

As I also said before, I do not want to give any of my money to Rush or anyone like him who uses his position to spread lies and nationalism, racism and sexism. The Fluke episode is an example of how much of a sexist and sleazy liar he is.
 
Increasing her GPA one prof at a time?

She was talking about someone else, not herself. Nobody knows anything about Fluke's sex life from her testimony.
 
As I said in post#238 "If the books are presented as pure fiction, or are historically accurate, I have no issue with the choice. If he misrepresents history to support arguments for the socially harmful aspects of his worldview (ie. his nationalism, racism and sexism), then I find it objectionable. As long as the Children’s Book Council is not funded by taxpayers they have the right to choose any authors."

As I also said before, I do not want to give any of my money to Rush or anyone like him who uses his position to spread lies and nationalism, racism and sexism. The Fluke episode is an example of how much of a sexist and sleazy liar he is.
It's unfortunate you believe all those lies about Rush Limbaugh. Stay in your fantasy land, then :2wave:
 
It's unfortunate you believe all those lies about Rush Limbaugh. Stay in your fantasy land, then :2wave:

Jerry, if you can go to a website that shows videos of Rush making all of those comments, would you still believe them to be lies? Or maybe a site that has audio files of Rush making those comments, would you think that they were purposely altered to create a lie?
 
It's unfortunate you believe all those lies about Rush Limbaugh. Stay in your fantasy land, then :2wave:

The Fluke comments by Rush I quoted are from Rush's own website.
 
Jerry, if you can go to a website that shows videos of Rush making all of those comments, would you still believe them to be lies? Or maybe a site that has audio files of Rush making those comments, would you think that they were purposely altered to create a lie?

Nope - the Koolaid is strong in that one.
 
The Fluke comments by Rush I quoted are from Rush's own website.
Right, those quotes don't make him sexist or etc. That's his irreverent humor, not sincerely held beliefs. Half the show is satire like The Daily Show (well ok 90% of the Daily Show is satire while Limbaugh actually discusses real news more).
 
Jerry, if you can go to a website that shows videos of Rush making all of those comments, would you still believe them to be lies? Or maybe a site that has audio files of Rush making those comments, would you think that they were purposely altered to create a lie?
I never said the quotes were fake. I said those quotes were of Limbaugh's humor. You are accurately quoting satire and then treating that satire as if it's real. You do this simply because you don't share the sense of humor nor agree with them man's political views.
 
Back
Top Bottom