Sandra Fluke Responds To Rush Limbaugh 'Slut' Comments

[Sage Ninja]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

This is completely beside the point. Rush isn't forcing his views upon anyone; in fact I find that it's the liberals who are often worse about trying to suppress views they don't like. I say that from what I see. He criticizes (legimately IMHO) Fluke and gets shouted down for it. Who's the real "shove it down your throats" types?.

I agree with Rush that people need more self responciablity and I can even say that he made a few good points, however calling Fluke a slut and a prostitute even if it's his opinion, just takes a massive dump on whatever points he was making. Fluke is right when she said that type of language has been used against women when people do not agree with their opinion. It just seemed like Rush didn't like her stance and tried to focus on the sexual aspect of birth control rather medical aspect that Fluke was trying to make just to discredit her. When Fluke made her argument she used an example of a friend with problems with her overies that could have been helped with birth control. I don't think she even said anything about using it for recreational sex. I see both sides of this but Rush's comments were so out of line when it can to calling a slut.

[Jester]

Yeah, I occasionally tune-in to Rush, but I can't defend that.

At best it's a very VERY poorly executed joke...and that's a very VERY hard thing to defend.

[Navin Johnson]

I agree, he went way over the top trying to make a point. Its very frustrating when any
media person stoops to that level. If you can't argue the point civilly, i loose a lot of respect for the reporter, weather they are right or wrong.

[BubblyShell22]

I agree. Rush was way out of line in his comment, and he shouldn't have said it at all. But that's the way he is. He speaks without thinking, which leads to controversy. Maybe if he chose his words more carefully, he wouldn't have a problem.

And, yes, Jester, I agree that it's mainly the Catholics that are against putting birth control in their hospitals. I can understand their stance on it and feel that they shouldn't be forced to do that. I think it should be optional.

[Hannah]

So, if you believe in something on a ~personal~ level, you get to force that on to your employees?

No.

That is not freedom of religion.

That is forcing your religion on others.


Newsflash: NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN YOUR GOD. NOT EVERYONE FOLLOWS YOUR RELIGION.

You do not get to deny important medications being covered by your company's health insurance because of your religion. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Hannah]

Also, here's this:

http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/9402703.html


Rush Limbaugh is f*cking scum.

[The Stryker]

Know what would be hilarious? If she actually was a slut.

[Hannah]

I know you think you're being hilarious and edgy, but you're not helping the conversation at all.

What a woman does with her body is her own business. Stop name calling.

[The Stryker]

Originally Posted by Hannah

I know you think you're being hilarious and edgy, but you're not helping the conversation at all.

What a woman does with her body is her own business. Stop name calling.

I'm both of those things! Shut your mouth!

This is all a big circle of arguing. Everything and nothing is being said here and nobody is making any real points outside of their opinion and how they personally view things. It's just escalating and changing. Wasn't this about some crazy dude on the radio? You wanna have sex? Good for you, shut up about it. You don't want to have sex? Awesome, shut up about it. Yelling back and forth about stuff like this accomplishes nothing.


I'm wondering when this'll explode into a straight up atheism vs. religion thing because that's what it ALWAYS becomes.

[Barkworm]

Why does it always have to be "atheism vs. religion"? Why can't it be "sane religious people vs. fundamentalists"? Whenever it's "atheism vs. religion" religious people are always reduced to homophobic, misogynist, sex-hating, young Earth creationist kooks. Being from a religious family I know many Christians who would feel insulted if you put them in that category and I'm sure there are many people here who feel the same way.

[Cure]

Originally Posted by Barkworm

Why does it always have to be "atheism vs. religion"? Why can't it be "sane religious people vs. fundamentalists"? Whenever it's "atheism vs. religion" religious people are always reduced to homophobic, misogynist, sex-hating, young Earth creationist kooks. Being from a religious family I know many Christians who would feel insulted if you put them in that category and I'm sure there are many people here who feel the same way.

While I agree, I think you misunderstood Stryker. He just meant that in the past, random topics have degraded into religion vs. atheism on these boards before, with anyone who follows religion being grouped in with the crazies by the atheists. Which be dumb.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you? I dunno.

[Jester]

The only thing I have to add is this: If you disagree with your employer's benefit package...get a new job. No one is forcing these people to work for these Catholic run businesses. If my values conflicted with my employer's values... I'd look for a new employer, not force them to take my values.

[Hannah]

[BubblyShell22]

Hannah, the issue is that Catholics don't believe in birth control yet Obama is forcing them to provide birth control to others when it's against their beliefs. So, in part, Obama is forcing them to go against their beliefs and do things his way instead of respecting their beliefs and letting them continue to not provide birth control. Yes, not everyone believes the same way, but Obama is forcing the Catholics to go against their religion, which really isn't a good idea in my opinion. I may not be religious myself, but I feel that forcing beliefs on people is not the way to go, and that's what Obama's doing.

Then again, that's what all politicians do in the end. It's a never ending cycle.

[Candy Kappa]

how bout women that uses the pills for other uses then birth control gets a confirmation from a doctor?

Or is living a normal life during the period a no no?

[Barkworm]

Originally Posted by Cure

While I agree, I think you misunderstood Stryker. He just meant that in the past, random topics have degraded into religion vs. atheism on these boards before, with anyone who follows religion being grouped in with the crazies by the atheists. Which be dumb.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you? I dunno.

Oh, I got what he said, I just wanted to get this out there.

[Leo656]

It is a sticky debate, because ultimately it is about what different groups believe is right, and the truth that I do believe that you can't force people to believe what you do. I might not agree with a lot of what religious and Catholic-run institutions do, but it's ultimately about their beliefs in what is right and what is wrong, and since we ultimately can't prove they're NOT right, we can't very well force them to do things their God doesn't like. That isn't fair. It's not fair for Obama, or anyone really, to force a Catholic hospital to provide contraception if it goes against their beliefs, just like it wasn't fair for a buncha Christians to run around killing anyone who wasn't one and "converting" the rest during the Crusades.

Your argument might be "birth control is necessary for a lot of medical reasons," and you might very well be right. My girlfriend was having to take the pill before she started having sex for a lot of those same reasons other women do. But there are a lot of people in the world, an almost disturbingly high number of them, who do believe that NO medicine or medical procedure is EVER necessary, because whatever happens is God's will. And you or I might think that's the absolute stupidest thing ever... BUT, you can't say for sure, because they just might be right. You have to allow people, and groups, to follow their beliefs, even if that affects people outside that group, because that's one of the main principles this country was founded on.

And no, I'm sorry but you can't work for a company whose values go against yours and then try and force them to give you what you want, things don't work that way. I could join the mob or be a drug dealer and have a pretty swell life, but I don't, because that goes against my values. That's a choice we all make as adults, how much of our own beliefs we have to put aside for the necessities of survival. Forget even the beliefs angle: There are some jobs that don't provide ANY health insurance or health care, let alone birth control; you can't force them to because "It's my right as a woman and a human being," you simply have to work somewhere else at that point. And like it or not, it's entirely fair.

I should be on the other side of this. This is off-topic, but my whole life was screwed up by being born in a Catholic hospital. See, my parents weren't married, because after her first husband abused her it was my mom's belief that people don't need to get married. But I was born at a Catholic hospital that believed even though my biological father, the person who physically gave his seed for me to live, was right there, since he was not married to my mother he was not my "real" father. My "real" father was the guy whose divorce was not yet finalized, whose name my mom still had on her medical coverage, and so HIS name, NOT my father's, was listed on my birth certificate. Because of their beliefs that marriage is sacred, kids born out of wedlock, yadda yadda. Stupid, right? Because of this, I've had a ridiculous amount of problems with my identity, because now both my parents are dead and I can't get it fixed. When I was a kid and they could have fixed it, they didn't bother, and now as an adult I can't drive a car, even get a license, a passport, anything, because all I need is my real father's name on my birth certificate, and they won't change it without going through a ton of crap. There's a lot more to it but this is getting long as it is. It's taken years, but I'm finally close to getting it taken care of once and for all, but it's frankly ridiculous that I've had to deal with this sh*t for 15 years, all because my parents were not married and the hopital believed that was a sin.

And still, part of me thinks that's their prerogative. I really, really don't think you can force people to do things that go against their personal values, religious or otherwise, even if it seems to go against common sense. There's always a way to get what you want in life without making someone else violate their beliefs.

And I agree, if the chick really was a slut and a prostitute, that'd be pretty funny. At that point, would her argument be deemed shallow and Rush be vindicated? I mean, if he called Courtney Love or Lindsay Lohan a "slut" and a "junkie", technically he'd be right, so would he still be wrong just because "it's mean"? Is it still slander if what a person says turns out to be true? Discuss.

[Candy Kappa]

A "slut" is a woman with a man's morales. It's not in Limbaugh's place to call her a slut or a prostitute, sexually active or not.

[Leo656]

Is that really what it means? I never knew that. Like most slang terms people sling it around so often you never really think where it came from. I always just thought a "slut" was a chick who f*cked a lot, go figure.

And I'unno about all that, I think people have a right to be as judgmental as they wanna be. I, for instance, am very judgmental, and I personally think I have the right to call someonne something IF in fact they are that. If I call you a crackhead and you aren't one, then I'm slandering you, but if you really are one I'm just exposing an ugly truth. Especially someone whose primary means of expression is a public forum like a talk radio show, the entire point of its existence is to pass judgment on other people, and if the stuff they say is true you just can't cry about it because you don't like what they say or how they say it. Public speech or expression doesn't always have to be constructive, positive, or nice, but everybody gets to say their piece.

[Candy Kappa]

yes Slut means a chick who f*cks a lot, hence having the morales of a man, since woman can't sleep around without being called negative things while it's often accepted that men can do it. Is there even a negative term for guys who are having casual sex?

Rush can be as judgmental as he want, but calling her or anyone a slur or a prostitute on the radio is uncalled for, using birth control pills tells nothing of a womans sex life, nothing. There is no ugly truth, just accusations.