News >> Browse Articles >> Off Beat
Rush Limbaugh apologizes for 'slut' remarks aimed at Sandra Fluke
Article Submitted by :
Source: Los Angeles Times
March 03, 2012
Recent Activity
ssu459 gave a thumbs down to The Article "Man chained 11-year-old boy to dinner table after refusin...",
2 minutes ago.
Robocop33
about 1 year ago
14354 Comments
The Constitution and it's laws were based on English Common Law and that supersedes anything the Church may say. This is why there can be no human sacrifices or polygamy etc. and also why Sharia Law will never, or should never be approved. Check out "Cruel and Unusual Punishment". I do not think that applies itself just to the state and could be argued in court to apply to anyone.
As to these left leaning "Comics', They are not funny and use the venue of "entertainment" and the liberal application of being allow to poke fun of 'public' figures as justification for vulgar insults. They are vile people and I do not wish to listen to them. Limbaugh was wrong, he has apologized, he has been punished monetarily, and while his choice of words was wrong, the intent may well have been descriptive for a single, unattached female who needs $3000 worth of contraceptives per year and wants the taxpayers to pay for it. She needs to get her priorities straight. I'm also not a prude and don't think you need to be married to have a sexual relationship with someone but you should be pretty close. I also do not think that you should only have sex to make a baby but see no problem with having sex for it's enjoyment alone with someone you care for and are close to.
mz66
about 1 year ago
3462 Comments
I don't recall that part (not the funniest part, by my measure), but I'd bet he called her a BLEEP if anything. Stewart is not the "king maker" that Rushbo is.
Yes--it's hilarious (the funniest parts), because it's true.
ajsdaddyBPD
about 1 year ago
2250 Comments
So, it's hilarious when jon stewart refers to Sarah Palin as a c#nt? I dont care who you are or your political affiliation, that is neither humerous or factual. But once again the left gets away with it. Much like when the late Sen Robert Byrd (D-WV) said the N-word on television. Yes the former grand kkklukkker. Not a blink from the left. Can you imagine if Rush would have said such a thing? Double standard agenda driven PC liberals will be the end of this great nation.
mz66
about 1 year ago
3462 Comments
Jon Stewart chimes in on the controversy--NSFW (Not Safe For Work):
Daily Show: The Vagina Ideologues
And if you can believe it, the whole title I deemed not safe for PL, even though it is wholly innuendo.
By the way--although The Daily Show is satire, it is also usually insightful and full of actual information. At the very least, it is hilarious--although, in all fairness, I'm sure not everyone will be so amused.
mz66
about 1 year ago
3462 Comments
I'm not patronizing you--I'm surrendering. You wore me out. I'm ready for the next topic...
mz66
about 1 year ago
3462 Comments
Hm. I seriously did not intend that! It was entirely coincidental or at worst unconscious. Nice catch, MarlyB!
P.S. You give me far too much credit!
P.P.S. Are you done editing the response that this is intended to follow? ;)
MarlyB
about 1 year ago
4228 Comments
The State clashes with the basic human rights of others when it denies protection of individuals to worship freely. It does so when it interferes such that it skews the content and meaning of Church practices and teachings by means of compelling the Church to act in contradiction to its own practices and teachings.
In compelling the Church to contradict its doctrines, the State assumes the pulpit.
Your substitution of The Three Stooges for the Holy Trinity wasn't lost on anybody, mz66. I mean the strangeness of your non-Judeo-Christian analog to be taken in terms of how you expected it NOT to be offensive.
mz66
about 1 year ago
3462 Comments
Refer back to the "compelling interest" doctrine of the Warren court.
mz66
about 1 year ago
3462 Comments
Why do you think I'm confining it to brick and mortar? I'm not. What I am doing is defining the protection afforded by Church and State separation as less broad than you are. I contend the protections do not extend to where they clash directly with the basic human rights of others.
"...you arm-wave a strangely anti-Catholic analogy where a Church directs parishioners to commit violent crimes..." It was only an example--and it was purposely that strange to underscore the fact that when speaking of religious institutions in this context we are NOT just speaking of Judeo-Christian traditions. Your objection to this analogy seems to suggest you are NOT aware of this.
MarlyB
about 1 year ago
4228 Comments
Mz66 I think everyone understand Individual Rights as the rights of 'people affected as such' - in this case, the rights of worshippers not to have Church teachings skewed by State intrusion into Church-owned businesses.
In your haste to sweep aside what you conveniently dub an "absolutist" definition, you seem to be quite desperately pulling analogies out of thin air - like so many straws.
You refuse to see that the Church Roofextends over its businesses. Instead you arm-wave a strangely anti-Catholic analogy where a Church directs parishioners to commit violent crimes against neighbors in the community.
The intention of separation of Church and State was never to confine the argument to mere brick and mortar as you seem so anxious to do, mz66. It doesn't matter if you draw a chalk line around a Church building to show everyone the imaginary line the State will never cross when the State has already demanded the Church contradict its own teachings and practices under its own Roof.
What is at stake here is our Democracy's cherished principle, one where freedom of religious expression may not be casually swept aside by a State that would mount the pulpit. Then the separation of Church and State shall have ceased.
That, mz66, is a crime of breaking and entering no democracy can allow.
mz66
about 1 year ago
3462 Comments
For future reference: I will not get into an argument about the quality of my sources. It is very trendy to mock Wikipedia, but the fact is that when used properly, it can indeed be a perfectly valid source for FACTUAL information.
mz66
about 1 year ago
3462 Comments
With all due respect, Mr. Sparks--it may not be the end all and be all, but if the article in question has citations leading to actual reputable sources, we're good to go.
I'm aware that this is 2012 and not 1878, but our laws are built upon case law...and I was citing the first case in which this interpretation of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses was used.
Anonymous
about 1 year ago
With all do respect MZ66 Wiki is not a factual site to obtain any information on, simply because anone can go in and reword or change information into their own. As far as ROBOCOP33 i will defend his statement as the First Amendment states the "Freedom of Religion." Per the COnstitution they have Amendments and since this is a different era the laws that applied back in th 1800's and before do not apply to society today due to the fact that society has evolved and advanced far beyond what it was then, therefore the laws have changed in order to conform to the expanding of society. I am currently taking Constitutional Law and it has been explicitly described that as society and government evolve laws have to change. This is 2012 not 1878!
mz66
about 1 year ago
3462 Comments
Also, from the Wiki article on the Free Exercise Clause:
In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."
Jehovah's Witnesses were often the target of such restriction. Several cases involving the Witnesses gave the Court the opportunity to rule on the application of the Free Exercise Clause. Subsequently, the Warren Court adopted an expansive view of the clause, the "compelling interest" doctrine (whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities), but later decisions have reduced the scope of this interpretation.
mz66
about 1 year ago
3462 Comments
Also--to clarify to Robocop:
No, the Constitution does not say so. The idea came about as part of an interpretation of the Establishment Clause and did not become part of case law until 1878.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._U.S.