Rush Limbaugh Does Not Understand Apologies (and is an Idiot)

Posted: March 3, 2012 in Braak, crotchety ranting, crushing genius
Tags: , , , , , ,

So, by now probably you have all heard about Sandra Fluke, and her testimony about why 1) some women need “birth control” for reasons other than explicitly controlling birth, and 2) it’s not really the Catholic Church’s business to decide what medical treatments their employees get, one way or the other.

And maybe you have also heard about Rush Limbaugh’s pretty grotesque response to that!  If not, it’s here.  Yeesh.

Amazingly (and I don’t know if this is a first time or anything) Rush Limbaugh has actually APOLOGIZED for his statements!

Now, this is after he started losing sponsors, and so, duh, it has absolutely nothing to do with feeling bad about what he did, and only about feeling about how much money he isn’t going to be getting for saying heinous bullshit.

And furthermore, like every apology from an asshole, this isn’t so much an apology as it is a public statement of resentment that he doesn’t get to say whatever he wants with absolutely no negative consequences.

Let’s be abundantly clear:  the only thing he’s really actually apologizing for his is “word choices” — i.e., that, despite being a complete idiot about how birth control works, despite having an embarrassingly backward and stupid notion about women’s healthcare AND labor laws, despite going on the radio and demanding that any woman who wants birth control should have to make a video of herself having sex so that he can watch it, the only thing that he thinks he did wrong is use the wrong words.

In the interests of exploring the merits of his argument, I have taken the liberty of copying his statements and seeing what they look like if some of the insulting words were replaced with other, less-insulting words.

Here is the original:

What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.

Okay, let’s try switching some words out here. What are the most insulting ones? Slut, obviously. Prostitute, I guess. Here we go.

What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a SEXUALLY-PROMISCUOUS WOMAN, right? It makes her a PERSON WHO IS REMANDED MONEY FOR SEXUAL ACTIVITY. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.

Hm. Not bad, but it’s still kind of insulting. Well, you know, “college co-ed” is kind of a weird thing to say, right? Georgetown has been co-ed since…well, let’s say 1952. So, hold on.

What does it say about the UNIVERSITY STUDENT Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a SEXUALLY-PROMISCUOUS WOMAN, right? It makes her a PERSON WHO IS REMANDED MONEY FOR SEXUAL ACTIVITY. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.

Weird, this doesn’t seem to be helping. Well, hey, you know, some people are actually offended by the word “sex” itself, you know? That’s why we have so many euphemisms for it. Let’s try something a little more clinical.

What does it say about the UNIVERSITY STUDENT Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have VAGINAL INTERCOURSE — what does that make her? It makes her a WOMAN WHO ENGAGES IN VAGINAL INTECOURSE, right? It makes her a PERSON WHO IS REMANDED MONEY FOR ENGAGING IN VAGINAL INTERCOURSE. She wants to be paid to have VAGINAL INTERCORSE. She’s having so much VAGINAL INTERCOURSE she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have VAGINAL INTEROUCRSE.

Huh. So, maybe he’s actually talking about that other part? The part where he said if she wants her birth control covered by her health insurance, she should have to make videos of herself having sex and put them on the internet? Where’s that quote, let’s see.

[I]f we’re going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

Obviously, the problem with this is just the word choices, right? Let’s…let’s make this a little less…a little less insulting by using the power of SYNONYMS.

[I]f we’re going to PROVIDE RECOMPENSE for your PROPHYLACTIC and thus COMPENSATE YOU for you to ENGAGE IN VAGINAL INTERCOURSE, we WOULD LIKE something IN RETURN. We want you to UPLOAD the MOVING PICTURES TO THE INTERNET so we can all OBSERVE.

I’ve got to admit, this apology does kind of have me scratching my head. I mean, I know a decent number of words, and this isn’t making a lot of sense, how he could have chosen his words differently in a way that would make them less heinous. Do you want to try, dear reader? Here, leave your Rush Limbaugh mad libs in the comments!

What does it say about the [NOUN] Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional [NOUN] and essentially says that she must be [VERB] to have [KIND OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY] — what does that make her? It makes her a [FEMININE NOUN], right? It makes her a [OCCUPATION]. She wants to be paid to have [SEXUAL ACTIVITY]. She’s having so much [SEXUAL ACTIVITY] she can’t afford the [NOUN]. She wants you and me and the [PLURAL NOUN] to pay her to have [SEXUAL ACTIVITY].

Advertisements
Comments
  1. I think his “poor word choices” are using words. He should stick to incoherent grunting – suits him better.

  2. a second raptor in the bushes says:

    What does it say about the Ground-Beef Patty Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional Elasmosaurus and essentially says that she must be Electrocuted to have the Ol’ Rear Admiral — what does that make her? It makes her a doe a deer a female deer, right? It makes her a Regional Safety Supervisor. She wants to be paid to have Puppies in a Bathtub. She’s having so much three-eyed tortoise she can’t afford the magnetic tape head. She wants you and me and the RISD Graduating class of 1989 to pay her to have rusty trombone.

  3. braak says:

    Oh well done.

  4. Rich Baker says:

    Are people really upset over what Rush said? I used to listen all the time. The only reason I don’t is because we are more successful now and have more machinery in our shop. Thus, more servo motors that block the AM signal.
    Rush made an observation about an idiot woman….WHO CARES?
    If you’re upset with Rush, you’re an idiot. You have too much time on your hands to worry about what other people say on an ENTERTAINMENT SHOW. You should be more worried about what these idiots in Washington are saying. They are the asses that actually make public policy into law.

    But NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
    We’re too upset about Rush.

    Geesh!!!!

    Go stick your heads in a hole. You may have to pull them out of your asses to find another hole.

  5. braak says:

    Hahahah, Rich Baker, you are my favorite.

    Attention, bonehead: the only thing more pathetic than caring about what some fat idiot says on an entertainment show and writing a blog post about it is READING A BLOG POST ABOUT WHAT AN IDIOT SAID ON AN ENTERTAINMENT SHOW and then getting so worked up that you LEAVE A COMMENT.

    Begone, idiot. You are an embarrassment to the species, no matter how many servo motors you command.

  6. V.I.P. Referee says:

    Sounds like a fine, GOP budget proposal, “a second raptor in the bushes”. Far, more coherant, than Paul Ryan’s recent “I want, I want…” wishlist. Even he doesn’t trust rich people, enough — not like Newt or Romney does. We need to believe more in the power of The American Dream and the trickle-down, golden showers we’ll surely receive from our super rich, moral superiors. If only we could just find it in our hearts and souls, to give them more to share with us.

    Innocent, moral taxpayers, should not be stuck footing the bill to oil Floozy Flukie’s “rusty trombone”. Why can’t we just all oil our own trombones? Democrats want to throw the puppies out with the bathwater, but clearly, they know nothing of having puppies in bathtubs.That authority should remain in the sacred hands of The Catholic Church.

  7. V.I.P. Referee says:

    Careful, braak. As his name implies, he might be rich and it would be deeply un-American to challenge his perspective. He might even be from “The Bread Basket”, too, given his last name, so his opinions are TWICE as American as yours are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s