quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

While your link uses the words condemn and denounce, this is all I can find of Boehner's actual words:

"The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement.

Hardly condemning or denouncing.

quote:

Someone asked for evidence that an elected Republican stood up to Limbaugh's comments. I provided said evidence. If you don't like that...well, that speaks more to your political bias than anything.

quote:

Apparently, our "23-year old coed" was really a 30-year old women's rights activist who chose to go to Georgetown because of their policy on contraceptives.

quote:

So, an activist researches a university's stance on contraception and disagrees with it. So, instead of finding an institution that agrees with her stance (or has a stance she agrees with), she attends Georgetown with the fighting against their stance.

quote:

Not exactly the same picture as painted by the media and the liberal rags, now is it?

quote:

BTW - the place I first saw this 23 year old shit was in fatso's remarks, so find a listener to apologize for his error, if it even matters.

quote:

MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke “the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying.” Yet Fluke’s own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

And then he doubled-down:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke_n_1313891.html

But instead of apologizing for his offensive comments on his show Thursday, he geared up for round two.

Channeling Foster Friess, a main financial backer of former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), Limbaugh said that he would "happily buy [Sandra Fluke] all the aspirin she wants" to put between her knees in lieu of contraception.

He then expanded his offer to the whole university:

"A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex they're going broke, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control. So what would you call that? I called it what it is," he said. "So, I'm offering a compromise today: I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want."

Limbaugh, of course, was referencing the controversial comment Friess made in February, when he referenced the "gals" in "his day" who put aspirin between their knees in lieu of using contraception.

Fluke's testimony in the hearing was not, as Limbaugh claimed, about the fact that she's "having so much sex she's going broke buying contraceptives." She told the story of her friend who had an ovary removed because the insurance company wouldn't cover the prescription birth control she needed to stop the growth of ovarian cysts.

Limbaugh concluded his sexist rant by insisting that if women want their contraception covered, they should post pornographic videos of themselves online. "So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal," he said. "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/

Apparently, our "23-year old coed" was really a 30-year old women's rights activist who chose to go to Georgetown because of their policy on contraceptives.

So, an activist researches a university's stance on contraception and disagrees with it. So, instead of finding an institution that agrees with her stance (or has a stance she agrees with), she attends Georgetown with the fighting against their stance.

Not exactly the same picture as painted by the media and the liberal rags, now is it?

quote:

I wanted to address this in part because some people who post here are entirely comfortable in using the term "feminazis" and in my opinion this piece is an example of why that word is wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

"If someone wants to accept it, that's fine. If someone wants to reject it, that's fine."


Yup yup yup we know how debate works.....


Still,"the I believe what I want to believe and you believe what you want to believe" is a poor excuse for an argument.


Here,...... at least.....we expect to be convinced by arguments......not just hear stale position statements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

BTW - the place I first saw this 23 year old shit was in fatso's remarks, so find a listener to apologize for his error, if it even matters.

When I google "sandra fluke 23 years old" all I find is quotes from the piece saying "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."

I couldn't find anything on WHO reported that, except for this:

quote:

MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke “the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying.” Yet Fluke’s own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman

But couldn't find an Ann Williams on MSNBC.com or any mention of Sandra Fluke being 23.

For what it's worth, here's Yahoo Answers:

When, exactly, was Sandra Fluke described as a 23 year old?
Conservatives, in their desperate attempt to save face, are now saying Ms. Fluke is a liar because she's actually 30 years old and not 23.

From everything I've seen in the news she's only been described as a 3rd year law student. With no mention of her age.

I guess conservatives got confused since she was supposed to testify on February 23rd

Not to mention, how does any of this justify Rush Limbaugh calling her a "slut"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

I wanted to address this in part because some people who post here are entirely comfortable in using the term "feminazis" and in my opinion this piece is an example of why that word is wrong.

Did VAA ever give the promised rationale of why that term is no longer permitted here?

quote:

how about Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who said "“Rush Limbaugh’s comments are reprehensible. He should apologize." Is "reprehensible" enough of a denouncement for you? (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/limbaugh-should-apologize-says-scott-brown-first-goper-to-denounce/politics/2012/03/02/35655)

If not, how about Carly Fiorina, who (though not an elected official) is a prominent member of the Republican party? She called Limbaugh's comments "incendiary" and a "distraction from what are very real and important issues." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57389434-503544/fiorina-rush-limbaughs-comments-about-student-insulting-incendiary/)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The problem with that otherwise reasonable assertion is that it doesn't cut both ways. This forum is forever having threads started about "why don't these alleged rational mooslims denounce" the jihadists and claiming that the latest witless drivel some left leaning wingnut has come out with is the true voice of the American liberal. (Hell, you even get that about the latest histrionic scaremongering from British redtops that don't even name sources for the quotations they've invented or distorted...)
Either it is speaking for a whole group as a whole or it isn't, and if it is, then Limbaugh speaks for the whole of the right. That's the problem with reducing arguments to the biggest brush you can imagine to lump disparate elements together. There's no question that Limbaugh has a lot more influence over the Republican party than Michael Moore or Barbara Ehrenreich do over the Democrats, put it that way.