Rush Limbaugh Apologizes For His "Slut" Remarks.

BearMtnHIB wrote: Men do not get "free" anything- especially viagra.

Insurance companies do not give anything out for free- they build it into the cost of the premiums based on the risk pool. They pass on every cost to the customer- and that's US.

Before Obamacare- insurance companies could pick which services to offer- now they are told what to offer by government. Not so "free market".

Yes- this political activist is a slut because I say so. I can tell she is a slut. Women often think they know a slut when they see one, but trust me, men know who the sluts are. We can spot um a mile away.

I know men that get Viagra through a prescription from their Doctor, and it is covered by their health insurance. Why should women be denied the same thing?

If insurance companies can build into their cost of premiums the cost of contraceptive prescriptions, why should it bother you?

Your logic is twisted. Let me try this on you - "I gather that your wife is a slut, BearMtnHIB. Why? Because I say so."
I love circular logic.

BearMtnHIB wrote:

Kate wrote:

jmc wrote:

archer wrote: What do you think posters....is Bear single?

Bear is a lonely loser.

or perhaps married to a slut.

Now Kate is calling my wife a slut!

See- that's the problem with all you liberals- you all take everything so personally. This is not about my wife, or my slutty girlfriends.

Kate- what would you know about sluts? Tell me all about it.

No, I said "perhaps." Is your wife a slut, Bear? If she takes contraceptive pills, then according to Rush, she is a slut. See how that logic works? Or doesn't?

Kate - take a look at this chick......
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuK400fQs2wcPq1WRr9pnOMcZB8ybLGc956bFiBAPElBmaUyZyTg
See how she's always "flipping" her hair. And look how shiny her hair is.
You don't get hair that shiny just from using Faberge shampoo.
Oh- she is definitely a major pole monster.

Like I said- I'm not against her for being a slut- I don't like her because she wants us all to pay for her sexual product requirements. That makes her an entitlement brat.

BearMtnHIB wrote: Kate - take a look at this chick......
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuK400fQs2wcPq1WRr9pnOMcZB8ybLGc956bFiBAPElBmaUyZyTg
See how she's always "flipping" her hair. And look how shiny her hair is.
You don't get hair that shiny just from using Faberge shampoo.
Oh- she is definitely a major pole monster.

Like I said- I'm not against her for being a slut- I don't like her because she wants us all to pay for her sexual product requirements. That makes her an entitlement brat.

rofllol

I love your "facts & logic" that are meant to annoy me!

archer wrote: I believe I have the right to tell any company what I think about their advertising and make a decision not to buy from that company based on those thoughts. If they choose to spend their dollars advertising on Rush's show, I have the right not to spend my dollars with them when a portion of those dollars support such hate speech. The company can make their own decision about the loss of sales revenue and what it means to them.

That's true, you have that right. The issue gets to be when you aren't listening to the show on which they advertise and are not a current customer of the company and then contact them to tell them that unless they pull their advertising for the show you are going to call for a boycott of their product. Carbonite advertises on David Sirota's program as well. Are you willing to punish them by boycotting them for advertising on Rush Limbaugh when you agree with their advertising on Sirota's show? Isn't that essentially punishing Sirota with a boycott for what Rush said? If the left boycotts Carbonite for advertising on Rush, then Carbonite is not going to be realizing any business for the dollars it spends advertising on Sirota - which makes it a waste of money to advertise on Sirota. Rush's listeners are not going to punish Carbonite for what Rush said, the listeners of Sirota are going to punish Carbonite for what Rush said. Which show, if you were Carbonite, would you then pull your advertising from? The show whose listeners weren't going to purchase your product or the show whose listeners were still willing to purchase your product? If you pull the advertising from Rush's show, you run the risk of alienating a far greater number of potential customers for that action than if you pull the advertising from the show with many fewer listeners who have threatened you with a boycott of your product.

Did the left call for a boycott of Maher's show after his uncivil remarks? Of course they didn't - the boycott being called for now has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a civil discourse or punishing those who fail to engage in such. It is naked partisanship intended to silence one with whom the left disagrees - nothing more and nothing less. I didn't call for a boycott of Maher for what he said and I'm not going to call for or support a boycott of Rush for what he said either. The left should seek to emulate this consistency rather than persist in their hypocrisy. When I see them call for a boycott of those with whom they agree for being uncivil I will respect their calls for a boycott of those with whom they disagree for being uncivil. Until then, however, those calling only for boycotts of those with whom they disagree for being uncivil deserves no respect and will receive none from me.

lol Good point about boycotting Rush's advertizers, which other media will be affected if the company goes under or shuts down all media buys?

I also think she better get all the sex she wants now at 30 years old because just looking at her - I think she's gonna look alot like Janet Reno in 20 years.
http://media.washtimes.com/media/community/viewpoint/entry/2012/03/06/sandra-fluke-640_s640x427.jpg?73b8e21685896c3f2859310aaa5adb253919b641

Kate wrote: I know men that get Viagra through a prescription from their Doctor, and it is covered by their health insurance. Why should women be denied the same thing?

If contraception addressed, and was prescribed for, a lack of lubricity or an inability to reach climax without the prescription, you might just have a valid argument here Kate. Given that this is not the reason that the left wants contraceptive medicine and services provided "free" of charge, the premise, and all that results from it, is fatally flawed.

If you are asking that the insurance companies be required to cover prescriptions for existing medical conditions in a consistent manner regardless of what the prescription is, I will absolutely support that. I recognize that a prescription which can be used for contraceptive purposes has other medical indications for treating existing medical conditions such as heavy or irregular menstruation, hormonal mood changes, growths on ovaries and others. I fully agree that a person seeking to treat such a condition should have their prescription covered in an identical manner as one who has been prescribed Viagra to address their medical condition. When prescribed to induce sterility, however, the prescription is not being used to treat a medical condition, it is being used to create one. Thus, equating the coverage of Viagra to address an existing medical condition and the coverage of contraception which is used to create a medical condition is an attempt to equate an apple with an orange.

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

Soulshiner wrote: Strange how this is bring focused on two words when he ranted for 3 days about her in a deviant sexual way. To me, it's not the two words he said, it's his attitude and opinion that is the problem. Ranting about getting something for his money isn't even correct as the situation didn't cost him a dime. Comparing his 3 day rant to single statements which were admitted to as wrong and truly apologized for is a deflection. All of the statements were wrong, it's just that Rush didn't make a statement, he opened his mouth for three days and then offered a I'm sorry if you were offended by my wrong choice of words, not a my point was wrong apology. He deserves to suffer until he truly understands that his position on this is wrong.

You should boycott him! Oh wait, you don't listen anyway. Would you support the goverment taking him off the air, like Putin does to broadcasters he doesn't like?

No, I support Clear Channel taking him off the air. The government has nothing to do with it. This being a democracy and all, I'm free to boycott his advertisers. I'm also free to let his advertisers KNOW that I am boycotting them--and why. I'm also free to let the advertisers that pulled their support know that I applaud their decision--and why. That's called "free market."

Seriously, THIS is why you are boycotting him and his advertisers? I think you are just using this example to boycott him because now you have some support on this incident. He has said things before that pissed you guys off. And that sterilization remark was WAY worse than this. I get annoyed when people use the wrong incident when it really should have been done for the other incidents. But I agree with Kate. Let the free market and advertisers get him off the air. Don't get your hopes up though, he will be picked up by someone else.

CinnamonGirl wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

Soulshiner wrote: Strange how this is bring focused on two words when he ranted for 3 days about her in a deviant sexual way. To me, it's not the two words he said, it's his attitude and opinion that is the problem. Ranting about getting something for his money isn't even correct as the situation didn't cost him a dime. Comparing his 3 day rant to single statements which were admitted to as wrong and truly apologized for is a deflection. All of the statements were wrong, it's just that Rush didn't make a statement, he opened his mouth for three days and then offered a I'm sorry if you were offended by my wrong choice of words, not a my point was wrong apology. He deserves to suffer until he truly understands that his position on this is wrong.

You should boycott him! Oh wait, you don't listen anyway. Would you support the goverment taking him off the air, like Putin does to broadcasters he doesn't like?

No, I support Clear Channel taking him off the air. The government has nothing to do with it. This being a democracy and all, I'm free to boycott his advertisers. I'm also free to let his advertisers KNOW that I am boycotting them--and why. I'm also free to let the advertisers that pulled their support know that I applaud their decision--and why. That's called "free market."

Seriously, THIS is why you are boycotting him and his advertisers? I think you are just using this example to boycott him because now you have some support on this incident. He has said things before that pissed you guys off. And that sterilization remark was WAY worse than this. I get annoyed when people use the wrong incident when it really should have been done for the other incidents. But I agree with Kate. Let the free market and advertisers get him off the air. Don't get your hopes up though, he will be picked up by someone else.

CG ,you ignorant slut! We want him to continue, he proves the point how stupid the follower crazies are.