A nice man is he?
Citrix has joined a growing group of companies who are pulling their advertising from Rush Limbaugh's radio show following his controversial remarks attacking Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke. "Over the past day, we've heard from many great Citrix customers about our advertising on The Rush Limbaugh Show," wrote Brett Caine, …
A nice man is he?
Rush is a personality trying to be a Republican 'shock jock'.
Rush isn't a nice man but is trying to score points with the Conservative Right.
He is also a recovering drug addict. He was arrested and convicted over a drug offense because he was addicted to pain killers.
But here is his quote:
"So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch," he said.
Shows he is more of a perv than we thought.
"the head of the Republican Party was forced to give a humbling apology after calling Limbaugh's show ugly and incendiary."
I'd suggest an apology for the apology is in order. " ugly and incendiary." about covers this in my opinion.
That "jerk DJ" thing is, as I understand, at the core of US radiophonic culture.
The once-Merkin-now-Brit madman-in-chief Terry Gilliam made a great movie around such a person... It's called "The Fisher King" and is obligatory viewing for anyone who wonders what a red dragon in Central Park would look like. Or who wants to see Robin Williams in the buff for that matter (one of the very few flicks that remind you that, yes, Mr Williams is an actor).
...is that Ms Fluke hasn't yet, it would appear, to have instituted legal proceedings against Mr. Limbaugh for slander; over here in the UK, I'd warrant that a suit for defamation of character would by now be the least of his concerns (there being rules on what a presenter may and may not utter over the airwaves), but this is the USA we're talking about, so Ms. Fluke suing Mr. Limbaugh should be the very tip of the iceberg,surely?
Freedom of speech or whatever, radio jocks over there can say some pretty hideous stuff without any comeback all under the protection of the "founding fathers", it's why Americans come over to the UK to launch libel (hence, tourist libel or whatever it's called) as we believe in free speech as long as it's true, or unless you get a super injunction so people can't say what is true, except on Twitter, Facebook etc.
Nope calling some a slut or a whore on national radio is no actionable the US. Now if he said she is a know hooker or has aids and sleep with men to get them infected. To when a liable,slander or defamation case you must prove that what was said to you was a lie,a 3rd person heard or read it and that it cost harm. Yes being called a slut on radio does not haply as courts have said in simlliar occasions opinions do not count. There is a difference between saying I think he is a pedophile and I know he is a pedophile .
So if I understand you correctly, I can say I think Rush Limbaugh is a pedophile whereas I know he's a drug abuser?
Precisely. If you have any useful snippets about Rush's pedophilia feel free to share. Facts are great, reporting other opinions is OK (e.g. Anonymous Coward said that Limbaugh's a paedo!) but not lies. Lies are bad. Opining abou lies might be OK.
I actually sort of agree with Limbaugh's point that society (through health insurance) paying for birth control is essentially society helping people have sex for pleasure. Yes, there are medical reasons some for the use of birth control, but as a general rule it's about worry-free romping.
However, he's wrong in that we're not paying people to have sex. We know they're going to have sex. We're actually paying to reduce unwanted breeding, which, as Freakonomics fans will know, causes crime.
* I feel dirty
But it's precisely those people that do need this medication to control what can be really devastating conditions such as ovarian cysts and endometriosis who should be the focus here. These conditions are more common that you think, and a great many people take the pill for all kinds of reasons other than to prevent pregnancy.
Why should these people be at such a disadvantage (potentially missing days of work every month due to pain, or even becoming infertile) just because their medication also happens to be used for purposes that some people do not condone?
At the extreme end of the argument, pain relief can be used to do yourself great damage or even kill yourself, which I'm sure is not condoned by all sorts of religious groups. Does that mean that pain relief should also be banned because 'paying for pain relief is essentially society helping people to become addicted to drugs (or worse)'?
As with anything, it requires case by case assessment and regulation, not blanket cover reactionary bile. That's even before we start on whether people should have free access to contraception.
"... we believe in free speech as long as it's true, or unless you get a super injunction so people can't say what is true, except on Twitter, Facebook etc."
The thing is free speech in the US does have limits, the famous example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire or other threat exists is one where the "free speech excuse" wouldn't fly particularly far. It also comes to loggerheads when speaking with an "agent of the government" inasmuch as people can, have and will likely continue to go to jail for lying to an agent, who may be anything from a Senator to a local plod, just ask Martha Stewart or any of the BALCO people. Tangentially, police often lie during interrogations, that's "interviews" or "conversations" in plod jargon, when trying to get a confession in order to trip up the target and catch them in a lie. Note the police aren't obliged to inform you there is an investigation and may act like a friend and it's just small talk or "off the record" while waiting for something else but that wouldn't work so well if they didn't have the "free speech" bit to fall back on.
"I actually sort of agree with Limbaugh's point that society (through health insurance) paying for birth control is essentially society helping people have sex for pleasure. Yes, there are medical reasons some for the use of birth control, but as a general rule it's about worry-free romping."
There's another very good reason for providing birth control to people. It reduces the rate of abortions.
Wow - I wrote this before finding out that Rush had such an addiction to pain relief.... Definitely wonder if he follows through his argument to this extent now...
God no that would violate the one rule me and one rule for them clause .
"There's another very good reason for providing birth control to people. It reduces the rate of abortions."
To paraphrase Frankie Boyle: "I'm sorry Mrs Limbaugh, we can't do a termination, he's 61"
Actually, in the UK you can't say anything you like. If you say something negative about someone or something, even if it's true, it can be classed as slander.
Anything worth having is worth paying for YOURSELF.
I do not want to pay for your "romp", and neither do I want to pay for Ms. Fluke fun and games. It seems absurd that with drug stores able to supply her with ample of her needs that we should be required to pay for them.
Maybe the next step would be to start and insurance program with premiums based on her use.
Rush was wrong in calling her a prostitute. She never took in money to support her sexual escapades. However, she did ask for others to support it. She just threw all of society into the 'friend zone' -- we get to pay for it and hear about it, but are not invited to participate.
Given that she testified in front of Congress that she had enough sex that it cost her $3,000 for birth control, and that apparently, none of her partners had enough of a relationship with her that she could ask (or make) them go at least halfsies on it to defray the costs, the term 'slut' seems perfectly applicable here. This, especially in that the pills she is talking about cost $10 to $12 a month in the States at a Planned Parenthood clinic. We're still trying to figure out how one spends 3 Large on birth control a year without hiring a proxy to have the sex for you. It wouldn't cost her much more to get the tubes tied. If she started a kickstart for it, I'd gladly kick in a few.
Personally, I think she belongs on Jerry Springer's show. Can just see the teaser for that episode: "Next on Springer: She sleeps with so many strangers, she's going broke on birth control!" Just throw in a few toothless cousins and you've accomplished the 'Lesbian Hillbilly Incest' trifecta.
The PH icon is too good for her. PH may be game for many, many romps in the sack, but at least she doesn't expect me to pay for it.
Society paid for Rush's addiction to pain killers, so why not pay for Ms. Fluke's birth control?
Which is covered by his health insurance. In fact, drugs for impotence in MEN are routinely covered by insurance, and always have been. (Rush, by the way, was once held by authorities at an airport because he had the prescription written in his doctor's name, rather than his own, for reasons of "privacy". Meaning the authorities thought he was taking someone else's medication illegally.)
So Rush believes, apparently, it's acceptable for someone pay for HIM being able to have sex, but unacceptable, say, for a married woman who could not survive another pregnancy to have sex without worrying about dying, because she can't afford the pills herself?
Rush and others seem to think men have a right to sex, but women don't have a right either to have sex OR be responsible enough NOT to let it lead to unwanted pregnancy.
All of which is beside the real point: We're not talking about making the Catholic Church provide or endorse birth control. We're talking about a very few, vocal, Catholic founded non-profit, tax exempt corporations THAT RECEIVE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING.
Federally funded non-profits may NOT deny certain health coverage on the basis of the religious beliefs of the parent organization. The institutions in question were simply being required to follow the same rules and laws as EVERY institution receiving government funding.
Even more stupid: Most of the Catholic-founded non-profits in the country already HAVE health insurance, covering millions of non-Catholic employees, that DOES cover birth control, hormone treatment, hysterectomies, even vasectomies. Their Catholic employees may choose not to use it, but the company may not refuse it..
If other employers tried to deny certain coverage based on, say, the religious beliefs of their founders and executives, a Catholic company president might refuse to include coverage for hysterectomies or vasectomies, because those prevent procreation permanently.
Again, NO non-profit employer may deny a particular drug or treatment on the basis of the parent organization's religious beliefs. On the flip side, neither can the government force an actual CHURCH to include birth control in the health insurance offered to their paid staff.
Hospitals and clinics are not churches. They are not places of worship. They receive government funding, and in signing the contract to receive it agree to certain terms.
The President should not have backed down. He should have insisted the whining institutions obey the law like every other institution affiliated with a religious organization, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Just because they yell loudly doesn't mean they aren't trying to breach their contract and break Federal law.
And Rush Limbaugh is even more of a bigot for trying to turn the argument around. He vilified a woman who was only saying the law should apply to everyone, that health care provided must be consistent for ALL federally funded corporations, for both men and women, and for all citizens in general, not at the whim of insurance companies. And that an employees' OWN freedom of worship and belief may not be denied or dictated by their employer, especially not when denial of a Constitutional right also may threaten their health or life.
Powerful friend of Republican politicians getting done over in a US court?
Not on this planet.
Powerful friend of politicians getting done over in a US court?
Not on this planet.
Powerful friend of the ruling corporate overlords getting done over in a US court?
Hopefully SpaceX , Virgin Galactic or NASA can drop him soon. Literally , and onto someone who deserves it.
It's going to have to be a private venture - I'm not sure that NASA have a lift vehicle capable of getting the corpulent scumbag airborne any more.
Rush Limbaugh is merely being himself here, perfectly in keeping with the rest of his career and his entire philosophical outlook. So why has it taken these companies so long to realize that he was "not representing their values"? For the most part, he was representing their values perfectly, I would say.
This is less an indictment of Limbaugh (no indictments necessary, I would say) and more of corporate advertising in America. The latter will sponsor the worst kind of rightwing populist tripe that regularly slurs whole sections of society - especially because Limbaugh advocates free-market economic values - and only pulls back its financial support in those rare cases when an extreme outpouring of public anger occurs, and when US law has no choice but to actually take an interest in the case of one single slurred individual.
The fact that it takes a rare lawsuit to finally cut this guy's financial support after all those many years on the air...FAIL, America. Just fail.
So one of Americas' top ChristoFaschist Liars for Jesus is finally getting a bit of payback. I suppose it's too much to expect him loosing his radio show, unfortunately.
Sounds like certain so-called broadcasting "personalities" (I use the word loosely) here in the UK, who seem to think they can get away with saying anything on the air. However, the situation has been known to bite back and so it should in the States. The man is obviously an out-and-out bigot, if the reports are to be believed and should be given his marching orders pronto - never to darken the doors of broadcasting again.
Once in a blue moon I agree with his POV. His comment was inappropriate though not slanderous IMO. He is entitled to his opine of Fluke. You'd need to prove in a U.S. court that his comment was intended to cause harm - which may be impossible to prove and was not necessarily his intent. He may be of the opinion that a college student who needs $3000 to pay for her contraceptives is more sexual active than she should be? He's entiteled to that opinion just as she's entitled to screw every guy she can find.
As far as her testifying that tax payers should pay for her contraceptive costs, there is no way in Hell anyone is "entiteled" to this type of payment - period. If she want's to have sex then she is free to do so and she's also free to pay for her contraceptives.
Rush's target was a student lawyer who was trying to explain how contraceptives can have genuine medical health uses. She was citing the case of a patient who lost an ovary because she was denied contraceptives that would have prevented the damage! Limbaugh appears to be wilfully and deliberately distorting the story to present it as "This student wants to have lots of sex!" instead.
The student lawyer herself was merely providing testimony on behalf of someone else.
Get it now?
"His comment was inappropriate though not slanderous IMO. He is entitled to his opine of Fluke."
By the same standards I am entitled to opine about your sheep-shagging habit and the fact that you probably eat newborn kittens alive. Your mother couldn't afford contraception, when she clearly should have used it more often.
Now imagine I could have broadcast this "opinion" to a few million rabid rightwingers, half of them armed, rather than a few hundred geeks (if I'm lucky) or one moderator (which is more likely).
AC, because off all those armed, right-wing geeks...
you dumbass retard. Read the fucking article. It wasn't so she could have sex. It was that the prescribed medicine had a contraceptive effect, for a gay student. Shels not getting pregnant is she?
Limbaugh is a fat c*** and the sooner the bloated shite has an embolism the world will be a better place.
There is a russian saying: "Sviato mesto pusto ne byvaet".
Which roughly will translate as: "The cosy chair shall not stay empty".
Even if all Limbaughs, Le Pen's and Zhirinovkij's or Volen Siderov's get an embolism it will take couple of days tops for a replacement to be found.
>>Limbaugh is a fat c*** and the sooner the bloated shite has an embolism the world will be a better place.
And with that one statement on a public forum, you hypocritically fall right down to his level. Well done.
Not at all. She is NOT a prostitute and Limbaugh had to apologise.
He, on the other hand, IS on the portly side, HAS made himself fair game for comments on his own character, and it is at least arguable that the world would be a better place if he (and all like him) were dead.
Of course in the US a student pays for their medical insurance either directly or through their family or employer because unlike the UK there is no National Health Service free at the point of delivery.
The case she wanted to discuss during the hearing was about a gay student refused contraceptive treatment to prevent damage to her ovary and therefore the argument it was a contraceptive treatment is a bit spurious (why would a gay student need to worry about getting pregnant with a partner of the same sex??).
Rush Limbaugh also supports those states who have introduced mandatory assault on women through forcing them to have an ultrasound wand forced in to their vagina when they say that want to have an abortion. This is so that they are forced to hear the foetal heartbeat.
Sorry Rush has no defence other than the failure of American law.
Equally, you could make a similar dubious comment about a banker/politician/company director to a bush of plastic explosive, petrol bomb wielding anarcho-Maoist-socialists and in some people's eyes, that's ok.
Apparently socialists are allowed to be offensive, while right wingers are always instantly accused of being fascists. Ain't hypocracy marvellous?
AH as I don't want a petrol bomb in my lap come the revolution for expressing an opinion contrary to some self righteous champagne socialist.
What a vicious thing to say about anyone.
You must have a sick mind and I won't stoop so low as to reply in kind and wish you the "same".
It looks like the "slut" epithet came from her claim that she couldn't afford $1000 per month in contraception and so needed her ($23,000 per term) Catholic university to bundle it in with the education. Needless to say, $1000 buys a hell of a lot of contraception - some people have calculated how many condoms it would cover, which worked out at 5 or more per day. With 'The Pill' actually about $20/month commercially, and available free from a lot of places thanks in part to existing government funding (Public Law 91-572, passed under Nixon) her tale doesn't ring true anyway. From other accounts, it seems she's an activist with an axe to grind about insurance plans which don't bundle 'free' contraception - maybe that's driven by this ovary tale, or maybe she just made it up to get headlines.
It also seems to be all over the news now that Limbaugh has apologised for his comments, which is good I've never actually listened to his show, but it does sound as if he's pretty much a radio troll with his over-the-top wording. If he'd just pointed out that maybe someone coughing up over $70,000 per year in tuition shouldn't let her "friend" lose a body part for want of $20/month or a lift to the nearest Planned Parenthood to get it free, he'd have had a point - but then I suppose he wouldn't have the massive audience and all the headlines ...
... since it's orders of magnitude cheaper than a full-on pregnancy or termination thereof. (Ounce of prevention versus pound of cure and all that.)
Catholic institutions flatly refuse to provide care that can be regarded as "contraceptive." That happens to be why Catholic Healthcare West is now Dignity Health, a medical falling out about whether a doctor can make immediate need-based medical decisions or has to consult the Pope first. The $1,000/mo figure is not for contraception; it's for a non-Catholic - non religious aligned - health insurance that would cover her needs. As it is, the student program at a Catholic University will only provide the care options that the church deems "moral." Contraception would run somewhat over a tenth that cost, but considering that the purpose of the prescription was not contraception, you might have a hard time determining what it might cost.
Many plans would cover what she says her friend needs, but none sponsored by a Catholic institution would.
But not necessarily true.
20$ contraception can easily become 2000$ in the US system once it has gone through the insurance and medical system and is being administered as a part of a formal treatment regimen.
I for once am not surprised by the price tag.
Also, there is the erroneous assumption of per month, it may be one-off - an implant. In fact that is more likely in a medically administered case under prescription. That is a few hundred to start with, throw in the 500 which you just "leave at the door" every time you visit a US doctor and voila - here is your 2000. It is not monthly though - it is once up front for a year to 5 years depending on the type, location, etc. If the subject had some complications to start with forcing extra observations or regular checkups you may be looking at more than 2000.
The fact that you didn't spot this was about a serious health matter, not about having sex without getting pregnant, nor even that a second person was involved, and the contraceptives were never intended for the person that Limbaugh attacked, shows that you did not read or comprehend what was written in front of your face.
It is however only my opinion that you are a shit-for-brains prejudiced arsehole moron.
As many people have already pointed out to the other moron in this thread, the contraceptives were NOT FOR HER USE, but were for another student who urgently needed them for STRICTLY MEDICAL REASONS. Well, who used to urgently need them until the failure of the college to provide them caused her ovary to be destroyed, but I'm trying not to over-complicate things for your pathetic little brain.
"20$ contraception can easily become 2000$ in the US system "
Meh. Most co-pays on prescriptions are $10 or $20. Most generics are $5 to $10. It is easier to just pay the actual price and avoid the insurance -- and your pharmacist/chemist will tell you that, as it is a LOT easier for them to just adjust their price so they don't have to screw with filling out a sheaf of forms and get paid in 9 months for 1/6 of the cost...
... But then if you take issue with that, wouldn't Rush's activism be an equal or greater problem for you? It's certainly more overt and has a louder megaphone.
What everyone seems to overlook is that this is NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTRACEPTIVES. Rush and the Republicans have no issue with contraceptives. What this is about is attacking the Affordable Care Act (aka 'Obamacare'), along with furthering their principal party objective of making Obama a one-term President by utterly fscking up anything that might be remotely helpful to voters or the economy. But as a prominent Republican observed recently in a NYT opinion piece, attacking sex is probably not a winning strategy. Sex is still very popular.
Not accurate - the co-pay on one of my medications, when I had health insurance, was $20 for the generic.
Now I no longer have insurance, the lowest price available for the same generic, same dosage, is $110 a month - over 5 times as much. It's not a medication I can do without.
People don't realize how much their insurance covers until they are without it...most companies are budgeting at least $400 per employee, and it's that low only because they are getting basically a volume discount.
As for the Catholic University's student health care refusing to cover contraceptives for any use, they are in violation of Federal Law, because they receive Federal funding. They also receive State funding. They are a tax-exempt non-profit institution, not a church. Their students are not all Catholic, nor are they required to be, nor are members of the staff or faculty.
The majority of Catholic and other "religious" universities around the country also receiving government funding. They ALSO ALREADY INCLUDE CONTRACEPTIVES IN THEIR STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH COVERAGE. As they are required to.
Some religious colleges and universities choose NOT to receive government funding - that is, TAXPAYER dollars. Many operate as private instituttions, not non-profit tax-exempt corporations. In those cases, they MAY, in fact, refuse to include certain treatments and medications in a health care plan (though many of those at least realize estrogen/progesterone treatments are not given only for contraceptive reasons).\
But any non-profit corporation accepting government funding must comply with state and federal law. The Catholic University in question is still breaking the law...and doing it with money paid by taxpayers of every religion. But then, what do you expect from a religion that protects pedophiles?
The catholic church doesn't support contraceptives AFAIK so I doubt that they will pay for her sexual escapades.
And obviously not for any treatment involving certain hormones which are used in contraceptives, even if that will lead to sterility. Oestrogen and gestagen reduce the risk of ovary and uterus cancer. So since the poor lady lost an ovary and a treatment containing something which is used in contraceptives, we might assume that she had ovary cancer.
IMHO nothing to joke about, even if your catholic.
Are you really so ignorant of basic biology that you think a GAY WOMAN needs contraceptives to avoid getting pregnant? HAHAhahahaahhaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaaaaaaaa No.
Seems the Catholic church has a bit of a habit of paying for things it doesn't support.
[ for the impaired; thinking of the children here....]