SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 9:30:51 AM
From: jlallen3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224686
 
What problem is that? Why is a provocateur/entertainer like Rush a GOP problem?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 9:37:51 AM
From: locogringo3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224686
 
The GOP can no longer avoid its Rush Limbaugh problem.

You should really refrain from trying to make yourself sound more stupid than you are.

As I predicted yesterday, millions upon millions of people were refreshed by the 6PM Fox News about Bill Maher and Letterman, and their scummy remarks.

Over the weekend, people will find out that Obama cares more about a 30 year old slut, than 31 dead people and a wiped out town 20 miles from Louisville, or our dead soldiers in Afganistan.

Yep......a GOP problem all right.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 9:46:08 AM
From: TideGlider2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
Urine idiot.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 10:11:30 AM
From: locogringo2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
The Libs can no longer avoid their Obamcare problem.

Was he lying then, is he lying now, or both?

Obamacare cost estimates soar

Cost estimates for a key part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law have ballooned by $111 billion from last year's budget, and a senior Republican lawmaker on Friday demanded an explanation. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., wants to know by Monday why the estimated ten-year cost of helping millions of middle-class Americans buy health insurance has jumped by about 30 percent.

gopusa.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 12:44:49 PM
From: MJ9 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
The Democrat Party can no long avoid its Obama problem.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 1:06:15 PM
From: Hope Praytochange3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
GOV'T MOTORS halts production of CHEVY Volt for 5 weeks, Lays off 1,300; BLAMES MEDIA FOR LOW SALES.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 1:07:10 PM
From: Hope Praytochange3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 1:43:36 PM
From: lorne4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
ken...Should the tax payer also pay for contraception for those in the sex worker trade men and women?

If yes..why?

If no ..Why?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 1:59:39 PM
From: lorne5 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke
Posted by Just a Grunt on
Mar 02, 2012
jammiewf.com



For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

While she is described as a “third year law student” they always fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.


July 30 2011


Does your campus’s LSRJ chapter face opposition in regard to facilitating a comprehensive conversation about reproductive justice? Well mine definitely does! While my campus has a mix of people with different backgrounds, and a rich liberal arts community, the Midwest doesn’t exactly scream bleeding liberal. Some LSRJ chapters at conservative campuses face opposition in the form of other, more conservative, student run organizations; some face it from their administrations, and others from their peers, or the community in general. Whatever the opposition is, it can be incredibly frustrating and disheartening.

The question is, how do we combat this conservative opposition and oppression, in order to facilitate a discussion and educate others about the RJ movement? I am obviously not alone in facing these problems, as Sandra Fluke of Georgetown lead a packed room in a discussion on this question at the first Issue Caucus that I attended at the Leadership Institute, LSRJ’s national conference at Berkeley.

While no solution was definitively reached, and I personally don’t begin to have the “right” answer, I was really charged by the discussion and feel many great ideas were presented. Some campus chapters decided to take an adversarial approach, feeling it important to use those “scary” words the opposition fears.

Further background research on Ms Fluke reveals that she got her start in government in New York in 2009.


Sandra Fluke’s professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking began with Sanctuary for Families in New York City. There, she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative. While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Sandra was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.

As the 2010 recipient of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant, she researched, wrote, and produced an instructional film on how to apply for a domestic violence restraining order in pro per. She has also interned with the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking; Polaris Project; Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County; Break the Cycle; the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project; NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; Crime Victim and Sexual Assault Services; and the Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County.

Through Georgetown’s clinic programs, Sandra has proposed legislation based on fact-finding in Kenya regarding child trafficking for domestic work, and has represented victims of domestic violence in protection order cases. Sandra is the Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law, and served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. In her first year, she also co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking. Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.


My only question is, how does someone go from being a champion of domestic violence issues to an expert of women’s reproductive health issues?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 2:02:19 PM
From: lorne2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
Biden: We “Screwed Up” Conscience Issues in the Mandate
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC |
LifeNews.com |
3/2/12
lifenews.com


Vice President Joe Biden spoke to students at Iowa State University yesterday afternoon and admitted that the Obama Administration “screwed up” on protecting rights of conscience when the Obama administration issued its controversial mandate.

“I was the one that was tasked to meet with the National Conference of Bishops, and others and Cardinal Dolan, to talk about this,” Biden said in videotaped remarks that are making their way across the Internet today. “The fact of the matter is, the ultimate resolution to this problem is where it should have been in the first place.”

“The conscience clause is being honored in its literal sense. What is happening now is that we have been able to provide what was hard to set up — it got screwed up in the first iteration — is that any hospital, no matter where it is, no matter who runs it, profit or non profit, religious based or otherwise, has to provide insurance to their employees like everybody else does,” he said.


Despite a vote in the Senate against overturning it, nation’s Catholic bishops and leading pro-life groups vow to continue fighting the Obama mandate that forces religious employers to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortion.

The text of the Blunt Amendment is taken from an NRLC-endorsed bill, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (S. 1467, H.R. 1179). It would amend the Obama health care law (“ObamaCare”) to prevent the use of that law to issue regulatory mandates that violate the religious or moral convictions of those who purchase or provide health insurance.

The Blunt legislation does not affect any federal law other than ObamaCare, nor does it apply to state laws. In addition, the legislation does not allow any insurer to “discriminate against individuals because of their age, disability, or expected length of life.”

The Obama Administration has issued an initial mandate that requires nearly all employers to purchase plans that cover all FDA-approved methods of birth control. NRLC has pointed out that the same authority could be employed by the Administration in the future to order virtually all health plans to cover all abortions.

Key pro-abortion senators, including Clare McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana, voted against the amendment — which will energize pro-life advocates against their re-election campaigns this November. On the other side, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska were three Democrats who crossed sides and voted with Republicans to support the amendment.

Pro-abortion Republican Olympia Snowe, a Maine senator who recently announced her retirement, was the only GOP lawmaker to oppose the Blunt amendment. Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a Republican, was absent for the vote but would have voted for the amendment and against the motion to table.

In July 2011, the Institute of Medicine recommended several mandatory health services, as called for in President Obama’s health law. This included a recommendation requiring health care plans to provide controversial preventive health services, including birth control, drugs that may cause abortions and emergency contraception. The Blunt Amendment would prevent health care providers and insurers from being forced to violate their principles to offer services they are morally opposed to, and it guarantees that all Americans are not penalized or discriminated against for exercising their rights of conscience.

The mandate has already become the subject of several lawsuits.

Tell Obama: Stop This Pro-Abortion Mandate

Meanwhile, more than a dozen state attorneys general have signed onto a joint letter Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning started coordinating against the controversial Obama mandate requiring religious employers to cover birth control and drugs that can cause abortions

Bruning has contacted each of his colleagues in 49 states and has already been joined by a dozen, including South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Together, the three lawmakers have co-signed a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebilius, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis over the Obama mandate.

Also, the largest Catholic pro-life group and Catholic television station have filed suit against the new Obama mandate that forces religious employers like them to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs in employee health insurance. The EWTN Global Catholic Network filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama against the Department of Health & Human Services, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and other government agencies seeking to stop the imposition of the anti-conscience mandate as well as asking the court for a declaratory judgment that the mandate is unconstitutional.

Priests for Life, a New York based international pro-life organization of Catholic clergy and laity, filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration in an effort to seek injunctive relief from impending regulations that would require the organization to pay for employee health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.

The Obama administration asked a federal court to dismiss yet another lawsuit filed against the Obama administration over its mandate.

This was its first opportunity to explain to the court and the country why the mandate is not illegal and unconstitutional. The Obama administration did not defend the constitutionality of the mandate, but said the lawsuit should be thrown out because the administration plans to revise the mandate to make it on insurance companies to pay for coverage rather than employers, who will still have to make referrals.

“Plaintiff’s challenge to the preventive services coverage regulations is not fit for judicial review because defendants [Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] have indicated that they will propose and finalize changes to the regulations that are intended to accommodate plaintiff’s religious objections to providing contraception coverage,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote in its brief to the Washington, D.C. District Court.

Obama officials claim the mandate does not put forth any “immediate injury” to religious groups.

Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel of the Becket Fund, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic university, says he thinks the Obama administrations argument will not stand up in court.

“It doesn’t argue that the mandate is legal; it doesn’t argue that the mandate is constitutional,” Goodrich said. “Instead, it begs the court to ignore the lawsuit because the government plans to change the mandate at some unspecified date in the future.”

“Apparently, the administration has decided that the mandate, as written and finalized, is constitutionally indefensible,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty “Its only hope is to ask the court to look the other way based on an empty promise to possibly change the rules in the future.”

The panel that put together the mandate has been condemned for only having pro-abortion members even though polling shows Americans are opposed to the mandate.

More than 50 members of Congress banded together at a press conference to demand legislation to stop the new mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place forcing religious employers to pay for insurance coverage including birth control and abortion-inducing drugs.

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry held a press conference with supporters of the bipartisan, bicameral Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. His legislation would protect the religious liberty and conscience rights of every American who objects to being forced by the strong-arm of government to pay for drugs and procedures recently mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The Fortenberry bill currently has the support of approximately 220 Members of Congress and Senators, the most strongly-supported legislative remedy to the controversial HHS mandate. This measure would repeal the controversial mandate, amending the 2010 health care law to preserve conscience rights for religious institutions, health care providers, and small businesses who pay for health care coverage.

H.R. 1179 enjoys the endorsements of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and other organizations. Numerous other organizations, including the Christian Medical Association and Family Research Council, have urged support of the bill.

Sen. Roy Blunt, a pro-life Missouri Republican, is putting forward the Blunt Amendment, #1520, again, and it is termed the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. According to information provided to LifeNews from pro-life sources on Capitol Hill, the Blunt Amendment will be the first amendment voted on when the Senate returns to the transportation bill. The amendment would allow employers to decline coverage of services in conflict with religious beliefs.

Republicans are moving swiftly with legislation, amendments, and potential hearings on the mandatethe Obama administration has put in place that forces religious employers to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying Obama’s revised mandate involves “needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions” and it urged Congress to overturn the rule and promised a potential lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates had been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the original mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose.

Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.

The original mandate was so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.”

The administration initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.

The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.

The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 2:41:53 PM
From: longnshort4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
Rush was correct she's a liar and a slut

She will always be remembered as a Welfare Condom Queen.

When you win a hot dog eating contest for finishing thirty of them and then go on the talk shows for the publicity ... you don't have to call yourself a gourmand or a pig, but you've invited the titles.

When you turn state's witness after twenty years of murdering people for the Mob and admit all your past crimes ... you don't have to call yourself a "hit man" or a murderer to have invited the titles.


And when you testify before Congress on national television, declaring that you have so much sex in a year that even your summer internship's total paycheck cannot cover your condom bills alone... you don't have to have used the specific term "slut" to have invited its application by anyone paying attention, or for that matter, the use of any of its many synonyms.

(John Di Leo)



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 3:29:32 PM
From: lorne2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
ken...You can tell us here, do you have an obama prayer mat?

The imperial 'I'
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Exclusive: Pat Boone analyzes President Obama's fascination with his own power
wnd.com


In 2007, America thought it was electing a president. We never dreamed we were electing an emperor.

Are you among the many who’ve noticed, for a long time now, how many times Mr. Obama uses the word “I” in every speech, every press conference, every White House release? In ever imperious ways, he states what “I have notified Senate leaders,” whom “I have appointed” both to traditional posts and to his own newly created “czarships” over previously less regulated pursuits? How many times in his State of the Union addresses has he told Congress and the Supreme Court what “I will do in the coming months,” what “I‘m directing” various departments to do and even “what I will not allow while I‘m president”?

Even in Great Britain, where there is a legitimate monarchy – a reigning Queen – the little lady never uses the personal pronoun in her statements. She always uses the less personal “we.” It’s “we desire,” “we believe,” “it is our wish,” recognizing that, in a very real but unstated way, she rules by the consent of her people. She certainly doesn’t wish to provoke their resentment by a pompous supremacy. Not so our current White House occupant.

In America, what happened to “We the People”?

What happened to the constitutional separation of three equal powers in our government? To the expressed duty (and freedom) of both houses of Congress to “advise and consent” – or not to consent – to what the elected executive might determine? In fact, what happened to the Constitution itself? It’s increasingly ignored by the president (who declared at Harvard he felt the Constitution was a “flawed document”), Congress and our courts.

This includes even one current member of that our hallowed Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In a recent interview on Egyptian TV, she actually said, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” She said South Africa, Canada and Europe had better models.

Common sense would dictate, in light of that sentiment, that she should resign immediately from the Court, since she swore to uphold and defend it. Since she can’t personally change it, except by decrees that undermine and render it irrelevant, why should she go on receiving all her lifetime benefits as a justice, since she regards it as a flawed, inferior and out-of-date document?

Why not at least have the grace to step down and let someone replace her who still subscribes to what our Founding Fathers instituted? Why indeed?

Meanwhile, right under our noses, Mr. Obama and his appointees in Justice, law enforcement and immigration refuse to obey the clear dictates of the Constitution and their own oaths of office to defend and secure our borders and enforce our laws. When Eric Holder pleads amnesia about the “Operation Fast and Furious,” in which his department conceived and authorized giving hundreds of lethal weapons to Mexican drug cartels, his chief executive defends him, saying, “I still have utmost confidence in Mr. Holder and his integrity.” As if that should settle the matter, against all reasonable and mounting evidence to the contrary.

And dictates have gone out from the White House that the Justice Department is too busy to find and prosecute millions of illegal aliens, so they are simply to “lay off” and look the other way. At the same time, the executive insists, “I am committed to comprehensive immigration reform,” which is understood to mean, “I am finding the ways to grant amnesty to all immigrants, expecting they will surely vote for me.”And his appointees have strongly opposed Gov. Brewer’s efforts to defend Arizona’s own borders, when the U.S. government purposely will not. Isn’t there a specific part in the president’s oath of office stating he will “secure our borders”?

After three years of spectacularly inept and ruinous decisions affecting our economy, our world status, our individual freedoms and religious liberties, Mr. “I” is already talking about the “five years” he still has in office. He is so sure of his billion-dollar campaign fund, his dominance over union members, teachers, Hispanics, blacks, abortion and homosexual activists and the fawning liberal media – that he repeatedly “postpones” crucial decisions explicitly until after the 2012 presidential election – his re-election!

So, quite openly, any action or decision that might endanger his continued domination must be put off, no matter the immediate consequences to the economy, our energy dependence on Arab states, the nightmarish multi-trillion debt or the trillion-dollar additions to our yearly deficit. It’s truly reminiscent of the French queen who, in a similar bubbling revolutionary uprising declared of her desperate subjects, “Let them eat cake!”

Feeling that he is immovably in charge, Mr. Obama now avers, “If Congress won’t act, I will!” He, having directed the Democrats to act in ways that responsible Republicans can’t endorse, now is making “executive decisions” that make Congress irrelevant. He said “I will not allow the pipeline from Canada” that would supply vast new oil to the U.S. and create thousands of new jobs – and risk the oil going to China!

He unilaterally made the decision that Catholic charities, schools and public ministries must make abortion services available, regardless of their long-established religious opposition. Shrewdly, because he and his advisers knew the firestorm this would create, he was ready to propose a “reasoned compromise,” assuring Catholics they wouldn’t have to provide abortions and that their insurance companies would do it free of charge. The liberal press trumpeted his Solomon-like solution – ignoring that the Catholics have to buy the insurance, so they’re paying for the abortions after all!

Why should anybody be surprised? Although candidate Obama stated he didn’t favor abortion and that taxpayers should never have to pay for them, his first “executive order” after he sat down in the Oval Office was to provide $250 million to Planned Parenthood worldwide. He knew that PP, while also offering other services to needy women, is the world’s foremost providers of abortion (some 350,000 last year). It set the tone for his imperial presidency.

You, poor plebeian serf, don’t have much of a say now. “I” is in charge.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 3:31:30 PM
From: lorne2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
ken, does this guy look a bit snobish to you?




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 4:19:58 PM
From: Ann Corrigan3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
Lol..your Apologizer in Chief is every Americans' problem:

Excerpt from Mark Steyn's latest:

"Someone accidentally burned a Quran prisoners pals had already defaced with covert messages? Die, die, foreigners! The president of the United States issues a groveling and characteristically clueless apology for it?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 6:22:45 PM
From: TideGlider1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224686
 
Limbaugh apologizes to student he called 'slut' for 'insulting word choices'





Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh speaks during a news conference at The Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Friday, Jan. 1, 2010. Limbaugh was taken to the hospital after experiencing chest pains similar to a heart attack Wednesday during a vacation. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)

By msnbc.com
Several days after criticizing a Georgetown student who advocated for the availability of birth control and calling her a "slut," conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh issued an apology to Sandra Fluke on his website, saying "in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize."

Limbaugh sparked outcry that crossed political lines on Friday when he mocked the fact that Fluke, who advocated for the availability of contraception at a recent hearing before congressional Democrats, received a phone call from President Barack Obama arguing, she should "disconnect the phone. I'd go into hiding and hope the media didn't find me."







Limbaugh also denied he was opposed to birth control, according to a transcript of his show. “This is about expanding the reach and power of government into your womb, if you're a woman. This is about the Democrat Party wanting more and more control over you. What was early feminism all about? Emancipation, individuality, freedom, liberation, all of these things. Now here comes Danica Patrick out and she says, 'I'm perfectly comfortable letting the government make my health decisions for me.' Well, folks, I'm gonna tell you: Right there, that's the death and the end of feminism.”

The furor was sparked by Limbaugh's comments on Wednesday, when he branded Fluke a "slut" for her support of the administration's new policy on contraception. The radio show host repeated the charges on Thursday, saying: "Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You'd call 'em a slut, a prostitute or whatever."

In his statement on his website on Saturday, Limbaugh said, "For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke."

Despite furor, Limbaugh refuses to back down

He went on to add, however, "I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line?"

He continued, "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."

But the brief statement concluded apologetically: "My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 7:09:51 PM
From: TideGlider2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224686
 
What's up with this Ken??

On his radio program Friday, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh called for President Obama to return the $1 million that Bill Maher gave to his Super PAC due to the vulgar things the comedian has called Sarah Palin.

Maher haplessly countered this on HBO's Real Time later in the evening saying, "Rush, I don't have sponsors - I'm on HBO" (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary, vulgarity warning):

[iframe title="MRC TV video player" height=281 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/110653" frameBorder=0 width=500 allowfullscreen=""][/iframe]

Not surprisingly, Maher began his monologue Friday with the media-created birth control controversy and Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke.

That of course led to him bringing up the current liberal hysteria over Limbaugh joking about her being a slut and wanting her to make videos for taxpayers funding her birth control.

"Today, Rush Limbaugh tried to drag me into this bulls--t he caused."

Maher then explained that he had recently given $1 million to pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action, and "Rush Limbaugh says I have to give that money back, or he has to give that money back - it's not really him, it's a Super PAC - anybody, somebody's got to give it back because, you know, I sometimes call Sarah Palin a bad name."

A bad name? As NewsBusters reported, he called her a " dumb twat" and a " cunt."

He continued, "This analogy breaks down in so many places I can't even begin except let's just start with this - Rush, I don't have sponsors - I'm on HBO."

Predictably, the idiots in Maher's audience applauded this.

So, the line in the sand on decency is only crossed if you have sponsors? Without them you're free to attack anyone in the nation with total impunity?

Pretty preposterous especially as HBO has sponsors - the millions of people who pay for the subscription.

Also of note, Maher's C-word reference to Palin wasn't said on HBO. It was at the Winspear Opera House in Dallas thereby making his absurd sponsors defense completely moot.

But Maher not surprisingly missed Limbaugh's point:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: For those of you tuning into this program to find out what's going on, there is a central element of the whole Sandra Fluke story that you are not being told in the mainstream media. We've discussed it repeatedly here, but it's not part of the reporting in the mainstream version of it. But Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, just said that Obama finds the attacks on Fluke to be "reprehensible, disappointing, personal and crude." So I ask Jay Carney: Will President Obama now give back the $1 million donation that Bill Maher just gave his super PAC? You want to get some tapes of some things that Bill Maher has called Sarah Palin?

The C-word over and over again.

Bill Maher and some of his comments make me look like Romper Room, a choir boy. So will Obama be giving back Bill Maher's money? Not just Bill Maher. Look at how they have characterized Sarah Palin all of these years. The media included! I know Jay Carney will not be asked. That's why I'm asking: "Will Obama give back Bill Maher's money?"

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/03/maher-responds-limbaugh-i-can-call-palin-c-word-because-i-dont-have-s#ixzz1o6NDhxGG



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/3/2012 7:39:01 PM
From: TopCat2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224686
 
Did you go lie about your party affiliation and vote as a Republican today?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125365)3/5/2012 11:43:34 AM
From: JakeStraw4 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224686
 
First off Kenny Troll, Limbaugh is not an elected official and can say whatever he wants. If the public finds his views disgusting, they'll tune out. More importantly, why does a U.S. President and all is moronic democrat hacks need to insert themselves in the argument between student Sandra Fluke and Limbaugh. Aren't there more important things for a President to be working on? Jobs? The economy? Not sending us into World War III via some prolonged Iranian conflict?