Whether he was correct or not, I am totally not getting what the big deal is. It sounded like a perfectly reasonable statement.
1: How can any major campaign not know that it is now impossible to etch-a-sketch in an era of 24-7 cable news, cell phone videos, the Internet, and YouTube?
Um... it actually happens all the time?
And even if he's wrong.... so what? Are we so starving for entertainment that it takes this bit of inocuousness to get us off?
1: How can any major campaign not know that it is now impossible to etch-a-sketch in an era of 24-7 cable news, cell phone videos, the Internet, and YouTube?
2: This Republican presidential primary season has become the most surreal piece of performance art in recent memory.
ksrymy wrote:Funny enough, some research just came out saying the Midwest United States consumes the most porn and, also, the most gay porn. Hooray GOP. Party against hypocrisy!
That gives a whole new meaning to "Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas any more!" being a supposed favorite line for some gay men.
Funny enough, some research just came out saying the Midwest United States consumes the most porn and, also, the most gay porn. Hooray GOP. Party against hypocrisy!
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh apologized Saturday to a Georgetown University law student he had branded a "slut" and "prostitute" after fellow Republicans as well as Democrats criticized him and several advertisers left his program.
The student, Sandra Fluke, had testified to congressional Democrats in support of their national health care policy that would compel her college to offer health plans that cover her birth control.
"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir," Limbaugh said on his website. "I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
Attempts to reach Fluke by telephone and e-mail were unsuccessful.
Fluke had been invited to testify to a House committee about her school's health care plan that does not include contraception. Republican lawmakers barred her from testifying during that hearing, but Democrats invited her back and she spoke to the Democratic lawmakers at an unofficial session.
President Barack Obama, whose landmark health care overhaul requires many institutions to provide birth control coverage, telephoned her from the Oval Office on Friday to express his support.
The issue has been much debated in the presidential race, with Republican candidates particularly criticizing the Obama plan's requirements on such employers as Catholic hospitals. Democrats — and many Republican leaders, too — have suggested the issue could energize women to vote for Obama and other Democrats in November.
Limbaugh was not swayed by Fluke's statements before the House panel.
He said on Wednesday, "What does it say about the college coed ... who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."
He dug in a day later, refusing to give ground.
"If we're going to have to pay for this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke," Limbaugh said. "And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we're getting for our money."
He also asked the 30-year-old Fluke: "Who bought your condoms in junior high?"
And on Friday, still defiant even after Democrats beat back Republican challenges to the new health care law, Limbaugh scoffed at the Democrats' talk of a conservative "war on women."
"Amazingly, when there is the slightest bit of opposition to this new welfare entitlement being created, then all of a sudden we hate women. We want 'em barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen," he said. "And now, at the end of this week, I am the person that the women of America are to fear the most."
By Saturday, six advertisers had pulled sponsorship of Limbaugh's show and Republicans distanced themselves from the comments.
Republican Newt Gingrich said reporters were more excited to talk about Limbaugh's language than Obama's record.
"I think that's a vastly bigger issue than anything a radio host says," Gingrich told reporters in Bowling Green, Ohio.
Even so, Limbaugh decided to yield late Saturday.
"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week," Limbaugh said in his statement. "In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke."
But he also said the entire debate was "absolutely absurd."
"In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom, nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a presidential level," he said.
Limbaugh's critics were not swayed by his statement.
"In all seriousness, this isn't an apology. It's a public relations statement. It's hollow and deceitful. Don't be fooled," tweeted the account StopRush, the effort online to pressure advertisers to abandon the popular host.
And even after the apology, some advertisers still planned to abandon Limbaugh.
"Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show," Carbonite CEO David Friend said on his company's Facebook page. "We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse."
The latest furor involved putting in place a requirement in the president's health care law mandating that religious-affiliated institutions such as hospitals and universities include free birth control coverage in their employee health plans. Georgetown, a Jesuit institution, does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan.
Many Republicans and some religious organizations accused Obama of waging a war on religion. As protests mounted, Obama said religious employers could opt out, but their insurers still must pay for the birth control coverage.
In his apology, Limbaugh repeated his aversion to the rule.
"I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities," he said. "What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?"
___
Associated Press reporter Ken Thomas in Bowling Green, Ohio, contributed to this report.
I don't know. I just don't like to "sink to the same level." If you feel that Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann are 'barbarians," a very strong term, I don't think it necessary or productive to do an "eye for an eye" type response. That's just me. But you could call the president a barbarian for voting to allow doctors a safety net if they don't save babies who survive an abortion.
I don't really wish I were straight, Oscarguy, but I know that life would have a different rhythm to it if I were. No, i don't think you have to be a Democrat or a liberal if you are gay. I disagree with most Republicans about what it means to be gay. Particularly the Religious Right. They believe that it is a moral sin to engage in gay activity. I have talked with very conservative members of my family about this subject without revealing myself. They say that being gay in and of itself is not the sin, but the act of being with someone of the same sex is. My response was "well why would God allow so many people to be gay if he doesn't allow them to find love." The answer is always that we are not meant to question such things. I said that scientists have found no study showing that there are significant differences mentally or physically, and the response was "well you can't study the soul." I found that a bit cynical, but I love my family and we agree to disagree.
The most you will get out of most Republicans is that individual arrangements between two consenting adults should be legally allowed. However, most Republicans are against gay marriage on the grounds that marriage was intended for a man and woman to procreate while bonded in matrimony in a life-long commitment. In essence, its the name that's the problem. They feel that their definition is the only one that can be called a marriage. I'm willing to concede that if a compromise may be reached where gays can have legally binding commitments in which all the rights are attached. Newt Gingrich said that, if the people of a state vote for gay marriage that is the correct procedure. He doesn't agree with it, but he believes that judges shouldn't dictate it. I think that is a fairly reasonable position. Of course he would like a federal amendment banning gay marriage, but so did Bush. It won't happen, because it really isn't necessary. That stance is a purely political one that helps keep the far-right on board.
My feeling is that you don't change things from the outside, you change them from the inside. Besides, I agree with many other issues Republicans stand behind.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
The only Republican candidate whose personal integrity seems to be without question is Ron Paul. He is consistent and doesn't cater to the audience the way the others do.
Romney is an elitist, an opportunist and a liar. Everyone seems to see through him, but the most rational Republicans support him because he's the only one who might actually be a moderate.
Gingrich is an elitist, an opportunist and a liar and someone who will go off the handle at the slightest provocation. He has no chance in a general election.
Santorum is the anti-Kennedy. Kennedy made it clear his religion would not control the way he ran the country in heh pre-Evanglical America of fifty-two years ago. Santorum, who is the right of Cardinal Dolan and the Pope, would base all his decision on the Catholic Church's most restrictive stances which are at variance with 99% of most Catholics who believe the Church should keep its nose out of the bedroom. I don't think he's evil like the Bachmans who are complete morons. He's sanctimonious to a fault, but not hypocritical. He probably only has sex with his wife to procreate and has never had nor would have sexual relations with anyone else. He's not likely to get many votes beyond the come-to-Jesus Evangleicals whether they be Catholic, Baptist or members of the Church of the Four Leaf Clover, and the homely girls who are waiting for a man just like him to sweep them up on a white horse, but his public santimony has already sirred up the worst in social conservatives throughout the country, not theat they needed musch prompting.
If the Republicans continue on this track to the nomination, I don't think they'll be able to revert back to the middle in the general election and maybe, just maybe, they'll suffer a big enough loss for the more level-headed members of the party to move it closer to the center and the Democrats further to the left, which would be more in keeping with the thinking of most people in the country, most of whom ar too busy or too compalcent to bother to vote.
Well, criddic, when the target of such condescension calls gays "barbarians" and feels they need to be re-educated, I don't think you should trouble yourself over whether the tone in response to that is overly-condescending or not. What you should really think is "what goes around, comes around".
But it's nice to see you allowed that one little, parenthetical aside to ignore addressing what I said about Santorum. Maybe you're in agreement on this one?
Well I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with being gay (I am for goodness sake), but I think snarky comments like "her husband is gay" or "he wears vests, he must be gay" are condescending and counter-productive.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
criddic3 wrote:
Well there's an intelligent statement.
The words he chose weren't nice. The sentiment, however, is another issue. Santorum is one of the most virulently anti-homosexual zealots ever to run for public office, much less for president. He's even worse than Michelle Bachmann (who at least found it in her heart to marry one). And if someone's as obsessed with the gay community as Santorum is, then the rest of us have every right to speculate why that may be.
Ah, you guys are hopeless! lol
You know you do your cause no justice by saying things like "she married one." It's all too mean-spirited. Disagree with them sure. No problem with that. But you aren't going to convince anyone with that kind of personal attack. Maybe I'm holding you to too high a standard, though. You have the right to be mean, but I don't think it makes much sense.
I do my cause no justice? Everyone here supports my "cause" except you, so my "cause" isn't hurt a bit, and since you're never convinced by anything we say what difference does it make? And there was nothing mean-spirited in what I said. It's only mean-spirited or a personal attack if you think there's something wrong with being gay. I'm not attacking Bachmann's husband at all. Beard or no beard, the truth is they look very happy with each other and are fine with the arrangement. I wish them well, so long as they don't affect public policy. But don't play innocent and pretend that Michelle's husband doesn't give off that vibe.
flipp525 wrote:Santorum is a closeted fag. I also can't imagine a better gift the Republicans could give us than to nominate this pencil dick. Bring it!
Well there's an intelligent statement.
The words he chose weren't nice. The sentiment, however, is another issue. Santorum is one of the most virulently anti-homosexual zealots ever to run for public office, much less for president. He's even worse than Michelle Bachmann (who at least found it in her heart to marry one). And if someone's as obsessed with the gay community as Santorum is, then the rest of us have every right to speculate why that may be.
Ah, you guys are hopeless! lol
You know you do your cause no justice by saying things like "she married one." It's all too mean-spirited. Disagree with them sure. No problem with that. But you aren't going to convince anyone with that kind of personal attack. Maybe I'm holding you to too high a standard, though. You have the right to be mean, but I don't think it makes much sense.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
flipp525 wrote:Santorum is a closeted fag. I also can't imagine a better gift the Republicans could give us than to nominate this pencil dick. Bring it!
Well there's an intelligent statement.
The words he chose weren't nice. The sentiment, however, is another issue. Santorum is one of the most virulently anti-homosexual zealots ever to run for public office, much less for president. He's even worse than Michelle Bachmann (who at least found it in her heart to marry one). And if someone's as obsessed with the gay community as Santorum is, then the rest of us have every right to speculate why that may be.
